% 
sete tras mays 
sf 


r} at 
> 
oe 


ay} 
acres 


stash 


xe 


a 


ft 


Bt 
ve 


AI 
aberels 
Afhe iy aA 
ey 
ee 
‘ “s 
K x, 
OTe ate 


Se 6 ete weed 


vas 
oP 


my 
Ay 


Or, 


we 


aks 


Patter oF a a a 


lls TE aie og 





ot ie Sve 
7s Gro (O™ pated, 
Rah Te ale 


Fibs 











LONDINIUM 
ARCHITECTURE AND THE CRAFTS 





LONDINIUM 
ARCHITECTURE 
AND THE CRAFTS 


BY 


W. R. LETHABY 





NEW YORK 
D APPLETON AND COMPANY 


MCMXXIV 








Bis 
i 

MADE AND PRINTED IN GRE 
MORRISON AND GIBB LTD., TAN 


CONTENTS 


CHAP. PAGE 
I. Burtpinc Mareriats anp Metuops ‘ : 7 
II. Buitpincs anp SrreETs  . : , y aag'a 

III. Waris, Gates anp Bripce . : " BS dir 

IV. Cemeteries anp Tomss . ; : pa bs Ld. 
V. Some Larcer Monuments : ; , SIG! 

VI. ScuLprure ; . : ee pa, 

VIL. THe Mosaics : : ‘ : ae © 

VIII. Watt Paintincs anp Marsie Linincs . i162 

LX. Lerrertnc anp Inscriptions ; : a 76 
X. THe Crarrs ; ‘ ; : «aes 4 

XI, Earty Cxreistran Lonpon sie ; seta 

XII. Tue Oricin or Lonpvon . : ; angen 


INDEX : . : : : hh 


THESE chapters were first printed in “The Builder” 
during the year 1921. For that reason, and because 
the earlier records of Roman discoveries 1n London 
given in this ‘fournal seemed to have been less worked 
over than other sources, a large number of references 
are given to tts pages. The account of Roman London 
in the “‘ Victoria County History,” C. Roach Smith's 
“< T]lustrations of Roman London,” and Mr. T. Ward's 
“Roman Era 1n Britain,” and “ Roman British 
Buildings,’ may be specially mentioned among the 
works consulted. The first named is cited as V.C.H. 
Mr. A. H. Lyell’s “ Bibliographical List of Romano- 
British Remains” (1912) 15s indispensable to the 
student. 


LONDINIUM 


CHAPTER I 


BUILDING MATERIALS AND METHODS 


T is curious that Roman buildings and crafts 
in Britain have hardly been studied as part 
of the story of our national art. The subject 

has been neglected by architects and left aside for 
antiquaries. Yet when this story is fully written, 
it will appear how important it is as history, and 
how suggestive in the fields of practice. This 
provincial Roman art was, in fact, very different 
from the “ classical style ” of ordinary architectural 
treatises. M. Louis Gillet in the latest history of 
French art considers this phenomenon. “It is 
very difficult to measure exactly the part of the 
Gauls in the works of the Roman epoch which cover 
the land, such, for instance, as the Maison Carrée 
and the Mausoleum at St. Remy. ‘There is in these 
chefs d euvre something not of Rome. ‘The elements 
ar used with liberty and delicacy more like the 
work of the Renaissance than of Vitruvius. In 
three centuries Gaul had become educated: these 
Gallo-Roman works, like certain verses of Ausonius, 
show little of Rome, they are already French.” 
We should hesitate to say just this in Britain, 
although the Brito-Roman arts were intimately allied 
7 


8 LONDINIUM 


to those of Gaul. In fuller truth and wider fact, 
they were closely related to the provincial Roman 
art as practised in Spain, North Africa, Syria, and 
Asia Minor. Alexandria was probably the chief 
centre from which the new experimenting spirit 
radiated. We may agree, however, that in the 
centuries of the Roman occupation, Britain like 
Gaul became educated and absorbed the foreign 
culture with some national difference. In attempt- 
ing to give some account of Roman building and 
minor arts in London, I wish to bring out and 
deepen our sense of the antiquity and dignity of 
the City, so as to suggest an historical background 
against which we may see our modern ways and 
works in proper perspective and proportion. 

Tools, etc-—Roman building methods were re- 
markably like our own of a century ago. The large 
number of tools which have been found and brought 
together in our museums are one proof of this. 
We have adzes and axes, hammers, chisels and 
gouges, saws, drills and files ; also foot-rules, plumb- 
bobs and a plane. The plane found at Silchester 
was an instrument of precision; the plumb-bob 
of bronze, from Wroxeter, in the British Museum, 
is quite a beautiful thing, and exactly like one 
figured by Daremberg and Saglio under the word 
Perpendicularum. At the Guildhall are masons’ 
chisels and trowels; the latter with long leaf- 
shaped blades. At the British Museum is the 
model of a frame saw. Only last year (1922) many 
tools were found at Colchester. (For the history 
of tools in antiquity, see Prof. Flinders Petrie’s 
volume.) 

A foot-rule found at Warrington gave a length 
of 11°54 in. The normal Roman foot is said to be 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 9 


11°6496 in. (also 02957 m.). ‘This agrees closely 
with the Greek foot and the Chaldean. (What is 
the history of the English foot ?) The length of 
the Roman foot, a little over 114 of our inches, 
is worth remembering, for measurements would 
have been set out by this standard. For example, 
we may examine the ordinary building “tile” used 
in Londinium. Inthe Lombard Street excavations 
of 1785 many Roman bricks were found which are 
said to have measured about 18 in. by 12 in. Ihave 
found this measurement many times repeated, and 
also three more precise estimates. Dr. Woodward 
said that bricks from London Wall were 17,4, in. 
by 11,°, in., and he observed that this would be 
14 by 1 Roman foot. Mr. Loftus Brock gave the 
size of one found in London Wall as 17 in. by 118 
in. Dr. P. Norman gave the size of another tile 
as about 174 in. by nearly 12 in. At the Guildhall 
are several flue and roof tiles about 17% in. long, 
and a large tile 234 in. long. We shall see when we 
come to examine buildings that the dimensions 
in many cases are likely to have been round numbers 
of Roman feet. 

Masonry.—Walling had three main origins in 
mud, timber and stone. Walling stones were at 
first, and for long, packed together without mortar. 
Mud and stone were then combined ; later, lime 
mortar took the place of mud, being a sort of mud 
which will set harder. In concrete, again, the 
mortar became the principal element. Stone 
walling was at first formed of irregular lumps. 
When hewn blocks came to be used a practice arose 
of linking them with wood or metal cramps. There 
are also three main types of wall construction— 
aggregation of mud, framing of timber, and associa- 


10 | LONDINIUM 


tion of blocks of stone. A later development of 
mud walling was to break up the material, by analogy 
with hewn stone, into regular lumps separately 
dried before they were used; thus crude bricks, 
the commonest building material in antiquity, 
were formed. Roofing tiles were developed from 
pottery, and such tiles came to be used for covering 
the tops of crude brick walls. ‘Then, later, whole 
walls were formed of baked material, and thus the 
tile or brick wall was obtained. An alternative 
method of using mud was to daub it over timber or 
wattle (basket work) of sticks; and this seems to 
have been a common procedure in Celtic Britain. 

Interesting varieties of concrete walling were 
developed by Roman builders. One of these 
was the use of little stones for the faces of a wall, 
tailing back into the concrete mass and forming a 
hard skin or mail on the surfaces, very like modern 
paving. ‘Triangular tiles with their points toothed 
into the concrete mass were also used. ‘Then tile 
courses were set in stone and concrete walls at every 
few feet of height. 

I have been speaking of general principles and 
history, not limiting myself to Britain and Lon- 
dinium, but the evolution of the wall is an interest- 
ing introduction to our proper subject. 

In Londinium wrought stonework must have 
been very sparingly used because of the difficulty 
and cost of transit. ‘There were columns, pilasters, 
plinths, cornices, etc., but it may be doubted 
whether there were any buildings other than small 
monuments wholly of such masonry. Even in the 
first century the “ details’ of masonry were far 
from being “correctly classical,” and ornaments 
were very redundant and inventive, Provincial 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 11 


Roman building was something very different from 
the grammars propounded by architects. As we 
may study it in the fine museums of Tréves, Lyons, 
and London, it seems more like 
proto-Romanesque than a late 
form of “classic.” ‘The Corin- 
thian capitals of Cirencester are 
very fine works indeed; the 
acanthus is treated freshly, the 
points of the leaves being sharp 
and arranged as in Byzantine 
work; a sculptured pediment and 
ornamental frieze at Bath are 
also free and fine. On the other 
hand, moulded work is usually 
coarse and poor. An interesting 
architectural fragment found 
in London was the upper drum of a column which 
had several bands of leafage around the shaft and 
was a remote descendant of the 
acanthus column at Delphi (Fig. 
1). Parts of small columns and 
their bases have been found, the 
latter with crude mouldings. I 
mention them because small cir- 
cular work was usually turned in 
a lathe like Saxon baluster-shafts. 
A small capital from Silchester in 
. the Reading Museum is of the 

mre a bowl form so characteristic of 

Romanesque art. 

A few fragments of mouldings and other stones 
are in our museums (Fig. 2), and a considerable 
number of semicircular stones have been found 
which must have been copings. Large wrought 








12 LONDINIUM 


stones were usually cramped together ;  lewis- 
holes show how they were hoisted; smaller wall- 
facings were, I think, cut with an axe instead of a 
chisel. We find mention of one stone arch (a small 
niche ?) in a Minute of the Society of Antiquaries : 
“Mar. 8, 1732: Mr. Sam Gale acquainted the 
Society, yt in digging up some old foundations 
near ye new Fabric erected Anno 1732 for ye 
Bank of England Mr. Sampson ye architect dis- 
covered a large old wall, eight foot under ye surface 
of ye ground, consisting of chalk stone and rubble, 
next to Threadneedle Street, in which was an arch 
of stone and a Busto of a man placed in it standing 
upon ye plinth, which he carefully covered up 
again: there was no inscription but he believed it 
to be Roman.” 

Mortar and Concrete—Roman builders early 
learnt how to make good mortar and concrete, 
being careful to use clean coarse gravel and finely 
divided lime. They also found that an addition 
of crushed tiles and pottery was an improvement, 
and for their good work used so much of this that 
the mortar became quite red. ‘‘ Roman mortar 
was generally composed of lime, pounded tiles, 
sand and gravel, more or less coarse, and even 
small pebbles. At Richborough the mortar used 
in the interior of the walls is composed of lime and 
sand and pebbles or sea-beach, but the facing stones 
throughout are cemented with a much finer mortar 
in which powdered tile is introduced ” (T. Wright). 

One of the advantages of coarsely-crushed tiles 
is that it absorbs and holds water so that the mortar 
made with it dries very slowly and thus hardens 
perfectly. In Arch@ologia (|x.) an analysis is given 
of ‘‘ mortar made with crushed tiles as grit in place 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 13 


of, or in conjunction with, sand.”’ In Rochester 
Museum a dishful of the crushed tile is shown which 
was taken from a heap found ready for use at the 
Roman villa at Darenth. I may say here that I 
have found mortar prepared in this way wonderfully 
tenacious, and suitable for special purposes like 
stopping holes in ancient walls. A strong cement 
made of finely powdered tiles, lime and oil was used 
by Byzantine and medizval builders and probably 
by the Romans also. Villars de Honnecourt (thir- 
teenth century) gives a recipe: “Take lime and 
pounded pagan tile in equal quantities until its 
colour predominates; moisten this with oil and 
with it you can make a tank hold water.” ‘The use 
of crushed pottery in cement goes back to Minoan 
days in Crete. 

In London a long, thick wall of concrete formed 
between timbering was recently found between 
Knightrider and Friday Streets; it showed prints 
of half-round upright posts and horizontal planking ; 
it bent in its course and may have been the boundar 
of a stream. On the site of the old Post Office a 
Roman rubbish pit was found, about $0 ft. by 35 ft. 
in size. ‘‘In late Roman times the whole pit had 
been covered with concrete about a foot thick and 
a building had been erected on the spot” (Archeol. 
Ixyi.). At Newgate the Roman structure was 
erected on a “ raft” of rubble in clay finished with 
a layer of concrete. Rubble in clay formed the 
foundation of the City Wall. 

Many walls, described as of chalk, rubble or 
rag-masonry, have been found in London—one 
instance at the Bank has been quoted above. Chalk 
and flints were the most accessible material after 


local gravel, clay and wood. Mr. F. W. Troup 


14 LONDINIUM 


tells me that “‘in the foundations for the Blackfriars 
House, New Bridge Street, we exposed a remarkable 
foundation (possibly not Roman). It consisted of 
rammed chalk, fine white material about 4 ft. 
wide and high, laid on great planks of elm 6 in. 
thick, which appeared to be sawn. . These were laid 
side by side in the direction of the length of the 
wall, which ran along the west bank of the Fleet 
River.” I mention this, although it was probably 
a medizval wall, as an example of a record; we 
ought to have every excavation registered. The 
walls of a room found in Leadenhall Street in 
1830 were of rubble forming a hard concretion, 

with a single row of 


“ bond tiles through the 
oOo  ¢hickness ol alain 
ZOBB oY, about every 2 ft. in 
AD-@-O@-O@-Cz (da height. A sketch of 
Fic. 5. this wall at the Society 
of Antiquaries shows 
it plastered outside and in. This was one of the 
common types of walling. Better stone walls were 
formed with face casings of roughly-squared little 
stones—what the French call petit appareil—as 
described above. An immense amount of piling 
was used in wet ground under streets and wharves, 
as well as walls. Foundations have been discovered 
of three rows of piles close together with a wall 
coming directly on their heads (Fig. 3). A wall 
found on the site of the Mansion House seems to 
have had only one row of piles; it was plastered 
outside. 7 
Tile Walling—The brick commonly used in 
Rome was a crude or unbaked block; the burnt 
walling tile was, as said above, developed from 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 15 


pottery, and it always remained pottery-like in 
texture and thin in substance. As Mr. I’. May has 
said of bricks: ‘‘’ They were made of heavy clay, 
well tempered and long exposed; the modern 
practice is to use the lightest possible clay right off 
without tempering.” Walling tiles were used in 
Londinium not only as bonding courses, but for 
the entire substance of walls. It is usual to write 
“Roman tiles or bricks”? interchangeably, but in 
origin and character the thing was a tile, and, 
indeed, roofing tiles with flanged edges were used 
as a walling material occasionally. ‘Tiles were of 
various sizes and shapes, but an oblong, 14 ft. by 
I ft. and about 14 in. thick, was most usual. In 
the Guildhall Museum are several triangular tiles 
which must, I think, have been used for facing walls 
with concrete cores. Solid tile walling was used 
in Londinium so extensively that it was evidently 
a common material for better buildings. ‘The 
Lombard Street excavations of 1785 exposed “a 
wall which consisted of the smaller-sized Roman 
bricks, in which were two perpendicular flues, one 
semicircular and the other rectangular; the height 
of the wall was Io ft. and the depth to the top from 
the surface was also 10 ft.”” Here we have evidence 
of a brick wall rising the full height of one story 
at least (Arche@ol. viii.). Roach Smith noticed a 
wall in Scott’s Yard “ 8 ft. thick, entirely composed 
of oblong tiles in mortar.” Mr. Lambert has 
recently described some walls of brick 3% ft. thick 
found at Miles Lane. A building in Lower ‘Thames 
Street had walls of red and yellow tiles in alternate 
layers. ‘This fact I learn from a sketch by Fairholt 
at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and such use of 
bricks of two colours was a common practice. In 


16 LONDINIUM 


Hodge’s sketches of the tile walls of a great building 
discovered at Leadenhall Market it is noted that 
some of the courses were red and buff. Price 
recorded of walls, 24 ft. thick, found in the Bucklers- 
bury excavations, that “the tiles were the usual 
kind of red and yellow brick.” 

More recently a bath chamber has been found 
in Cannon Street built of tiles which on the illustra- 
tion are indicated in alternate courses of red and 
yellow. In the description in Archeologia, it is 
remarked : ‘‘ It would appear that the yellow was 
preferred, the red being employed where they were 
not visible.”” Years ago Charles Knight observed 
that the tiles used in the City Wall at America 
Square varied from “ bright red to palish yellow.” 
This has been confirmed by more recent accounts 
in Archeologia. Finally, Roach Smith, describing 
the discovery of a part of the South or River Wall 
of the City (Archeological Fournal, vol. 1.), says 
that the tiles used as bonding bands were straight 
and curved-edged (that is, flanged roof tiles), red 
and yellow in colour. At the Guildhall there are a 
roof tile and a flue tile of yellow colour. Building 
with tiles may for long have been customary, but 
the use of red and yellow tiles in the way de- 
scribed would probably have been a fashion during 
a limited time only, and in that case it follows that 
the buildings erected with red and yellow tiles are 
likely to be nearly contemporary ; the date would, 
I suppose, be the fourth century. Specially made 
tiles were used for columns. At the Guildhall are 
several round tiles 8 in. diameter, suitable for the 
piers of a hypocaust. Also some semicircular tiles 
I2 in. in diameter. In Rochester Museum are 
some quadrants making up a circle about 14 ft. in 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 17 


diameter. ‘Tiles, eight of which made up a circle, 
have lately been found at Colchester, and in the 
Guildhall Museum is a course of a round column 
made up of twelve tiles around a small central 
circle. A large number of columns were evidently 
of such bricks plastered. 

Arches and Vaults—The arches in the City 
Wall, where it passed across the Walbrook, de- 
scribed by Roach Smith, were of no great span 
(3% ft.). They were constructed of ordinary tiles 
and were of a roughly-pointed shape. Arches of 
this form were not infrequently used in Roman 
works; they were not the result of inaccurate 
building. About a dozen years ago a well-built 
pointed arch of alternate tile and tufa, found at 
Naples, was described in Archeologia. ‘The tiles, 
although thin, were sometimes made slightly wedge- 
shaped, and the city gates at Silchester seem to have 
had arches of such bricks. 

The only London vault which I can find men- 
tioned is one found exactly two hundred years 
since at St. Martin-in-the-Fields. A Minute of 
the Society of Antiquaries reads: ‘“‘ May 2, 1722: 
Mr. Stukely related that the Roman building in 
St. Martin’s Church was an arch built of Roman 
brick and at the bottom laid with a most strong 
cement of an unusual composition, of which he 
has got a lump. ‘There was a square duct in each 
wall its whole length, of 9 in. breadth; there were 
several of these side by side: this building is below 
the springs on the gravel.” This building that was 
an arch, with its many flues, and cement floor— 
doubtless opus signinum—was obviously a Roman 
bath chamber, but probably it was quite small. 

Evidence of the existence of fairly large vaults 

2 


18 LONDINIUM 


has been found at the Baths of Silchester, Wroxeter 
and Bath. These were all constructed in a most 
interesting and suggestive way of voussoirs made 
as hollow boxes in the tile material. 
Similar box voussoirs have been dis- 
covered at Chedworth and else- 
where. 

I have found two such box 
voussoirs in the Rochester Museum, 
each about g in. by 6 in. on 
the face and 5 in. on the soffit 
(Fig. 4). The surfaces are roughly 

Fra. 4. scored across with parallel lines form- 

ing an X. ‘These two tiles together 

show an obvious curvature; they came from a villa 
at Darenth. In the Guildhall Museum I have 
also found a box voussoir which is almost identical 
with those at Rochester. It is thus described: 
“74, Flue (?) tile, red brick, the front decorated 
with incised cross lines; in the centre both front 
and back is a circular perforation: 94 in. long, 
6} in. high, 64 in. wide.” ‘The longest dimension 
is not in the direction of the tube, and the height is 
greater at one end than the other, so that the wedge 
form is quite apparent. 
The small holes in both 
the larger sides were 
doubtless to give better 
hold to the mortar in 
which they were set (Fig. 
5). Roach Smith recorded 
what must have been broken parts of similar 
voussoirs as found in Thames Street in 1848 
(Fourn. Brit. Archeol. Assoc., vol. iy.), but here 
they seem to have been used as waste material 








Fic. 5. 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 19 


in building the little piers of hypocausts. Roman 
builders also constructed vaults of pipes and 
pots set in mortar concrete as were our box 
voussoirs, but I know of no British examples. 
Vaults of wide span seem to have covered large 





chambers in the Basilica at Verulam (see Victoria 
County History). ‘The method of using the box 
voussoirs has been well explained from the Silchester 
examples by the late Mr. Fox in Archeologia (cf. 
Fig. 6). A fragment at Westminster Abbey is either 
part of a voussoir or of a short flue tile (Fig. 7). 





Fic. 7. Fic. 8. 


Some notes made at Bath further explain the 
interesting methods of building vaults with box 
voussoirs. ‘‘here are several such voussoirs in the 
ruins of the Great Bath, 12 in. to 13 in. deep by 6 in. 
and 6% in.; 6# in. and 7% in.; 83 in. and Io in.; 


20 LONDINIUM 


8 in. and 11 in. at the top and bottom. Fig. 9 
is a sketch of the third; it is scored on the face. 
The notches cut in the sides take the place of the 
holes in the London examples, and doubtless were 
for the mortar to get a better key; Fig. 10 is from 





Fic. 10. 


a vault of this construction which was further 
strengthened by a series of curved tiles set in the 
outer concrete mass, which was 6 in. thick; Fig. 11 
shows the ridge of such a vault—this may be an 
imagination of my own. One of the fragments 





Fig, 11. 


showed six or eight flat tiles set longitudinally 
crossing the lines of the box-tiles (Fig. 12). The 
ridge termination (Fig. 16) is also from Bath. 

Some large voussoir box-tiles from Gaul are 
shown in the British Museum, No. 394, in the 
section of Greek and Roman life. 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS a1 


Well-constructed arched sewers have been found 
in the City (see Victoria County History). 

Many socketed water-pipes are in our museums. 
Such pipes were occasionally used in Rome as down- 
pipes, and we might do worse than revert to the 
custom and get rid of the iron rust nuisance. In 
the British Museum there are some larger socketed 
pipes with small holes cut in them along a line. 
These must, I think, have been for draining surface 
water, for which purpose flue tiles were also used. 
Larger sewers were of brick or stone. 

Carpentry.—In medieval days the carpenter 
was the chief house builder, and much timber 
would have been used in Roman London. In 
1901-2 remains of piling was found in the bed of 
the Walbrook at London Wall. These piles had 
served as supports for dwellings. ‘The large 
quantities of loose nails indicated that the super- 
imposed dwellings were of timber” (Buzlder, 
December 13, 1902). ‘Timber piling has also been 
found at St. Martin’s le Grand and other sites. 
There was clearly much soft wet ground in the 
City. The better-class dwelling in Bucklersbury, 
to which belonged the fine mosaic floor now at the 
Guildhall, seems to have been largely of timber. 
In December last (1921) Mr. Lambert described at 
the Society of Antiquaries a remarkable piece of 
wharfing on the river bank at Miles Lane. This 
was a solid wall of squared balks of timber about 
2 ft. square, laid one over the other and having ties 
into the ground behind. The construction showed 
an interesting set of tenons, halvings and housings. 
A bored wood pipe was also found. In Thames 
Street a house found in 1848 had a well-made 
drain made with 2 in. planks forming bottom and 


22 | LONDINIUM . 


sides, which is said to have been covered in with 
tiles. ie 

Wattle and Daub.—It was ever a problem in 
London how to build without stone. Wood, 
gravel and mud were plentiful, and these were 
the common walling materials during the Middle 
Ages. As lately as the eighteenth century some 
of the suburban churches were described by Hatton 
as being of “* boulder work,” that is, a concrete of 
coarse gravel; and the walls of the Temple Church, 
before the falsifying restorations, were of some sort 
of concreted rubble skinned over with plaster on the 
face. Hearne reports that Wren said that there 
were few masons in London when he was young. 
Mud walls are mentioned in medieval records, and 
“‘ daubers ” were, I suppose, primarily those who 
did the filling in of post and pan work. The 
smaller houses of Londinium were largely of wattle 
and daub, and doubtless others were of crude 
brick. For the use of wattle and daub we have 
plentiful direct evidence. In the account of the 
excavations in and about Lombard Street in 1785 
(Archeol. viii.) curious fragments were found which 
are thus described: ‘About this spot and in 
many other places large pieces of porous brick were 
met with of a very loose texture, seeming as if 
mixed with straw before they were burnt. They 
are commonly channelled on the surface; their 
size is quite. uncertain, being mere fragments, their 
thickness about 14 in. or 2 in.” Again, chalk-stone 
foundations and ‘channelled brick” are men- 
tioned together. The “brick”? fragments were 
of daubing, and the channels were the marks of 
laths, as has been shown by other finds. Similar 
remnants have recently been discovered on the Post 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 23 


Office site and in King William Street. ‘ Débris 
of a wood and daub house which had been destroyed 
by fire. . . . In several cases the plaster was still 
adhering to the daub” (4rche@ol. Ixvi.). Other 
fragments are preserved in the Silchester collec- 
tion at Reading. The London fragments were 
found under conditions which showed that they had 
belonged to first-century dwellings. This method 
of building had been practised by the Celts, and 
we may imagine that the “‘ populace ” of Londinium 
was housed in small huts of wattle and clay roofed 
with reed thatch. In the country, old garden walls 
are occasionally found, I believe, built of mud 
daubing on both sides of wattle work, and sheep 
shelters of wattle-hurdles and dry fern are, I suppose, 
direct descendants of the old British manner of 
building. 

Mr. Bushe Fox has remarked that one of the 
earliest houses at Silchester and the earliest houses 
at Wroxeter were of wattle and daub construction. 
See also Mr. Lambert’s paper in <Archeologia, 
December 1921. 

Hypocausts and Flue Tiles and Wall Linings.— 
Several examples have been found in London of the 
Roman system of heating buildings by hypocausts. 
These were low under-floor spaces a foot or two 
high connected with an external stoke-hole in one 
direction and having a flue or flues in the other. 
When the hypocaust, as was frequently the case, 
occupied the whole space below a chamber the 
floor was supported on a large number of roughly- 
built little piers with a row or two of flat tiles above 
spanning the intervals, and over them a layer of 
concrete and a mosaic or other floor. The flues 
were usually box-tiles, and in the case of the hot 


24 LONDINIUM 


chambers of a bath one side of a wall or even more 
might be lined with them. A hypocaust with its 
stoke-hole and flue or flues was really a kiln of low 
power, in which people were warmed on a similar 
principle to the baking of pottery. The box-tiles 
were much the shape of a modern brick, and about 
twice as big; they were hollow and usually had 
scorings or impressed patterns on the surface to 
make mortar or plaster adhere (Figs. 6 and 7). 
Frequently they had a hole or two holes in their 
narrow sides, so that the mortar might better hold 
them in place. In the British Museum there is a 
long and large pipe with ornamental scratchings 
on the surface which may possibly be a chimney. 
The system of central heating by the hypocaust 
seems to have been an admirable contrivance. 
_Lysons illustrated an example at Littlecote where 
flue tiles ran up in the angles of a room like Tobin 
tubes, being cased round only by the plaster. The 
two best known London hypocausts were found in 
Lower Thames Street and in Bucklersbury. The 
former extended under the floors of two adjoin- 
ing apartments. The Bucklersbury example had 
channels under the floor spreading to several wall 
flues, each being of two box-tiles placed side by side. 
(See Price’s account and V.C.H.) Occasionally 
flue tiles had two smaller channels; there is a 
broken example of such a tile in the British Museum. 
Flue tiles were sometimes of a rounded form f), 
and in this case the wall itself must have served to 
enclose the flue. In the excavations in Lombard 
Street in 1785 (Archeol. viii.) a brick wall is de- 
scribed which had two flues, one being ‘“‘ semi- 
circular.” A long and well-made f)-shaped flue 
in the British Museum, with an impressed lozenge 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 25 


pattern on the surface, is described as a ridge tile. 
There is also a fragment of still larger diameter 
at the Guildhall. Similar flues found at Wood- 
chester were used as horizontal heating channels 
under the floor. 

Here also one of the walls was found to be lined 
with flanged tiles, set thus, | I | |, with the 
flanges against the walls. This may have been 
a provision against a damp wall. I have seen a 
similar wall in Rome—I believe subterranean— 
also another very similar where large flat tiles, 
having four projections at the back like short legs 
to a low stool, were used as linings. Each of the 
four studs was pierced for a nail. Fragments of 
tiles found at Newgate in 1877 were about 14 ft. 
square and 14 in. thick, “with rough clay stubs for 
attachment ”; they were scored over the surface 
with wavy lines, and were probably used internally. 
(In V.C.H. it is said that these may have been 
medizval, but the examples just given show that 
they were Roman.) In the British Museum and 
at the Guildhall are some flat tiles, scored on one 
side to receive plastering, and with four notches 
in the sides to allow of nails being driven between 
two adjoining tiles. These, too, must have been 
for wall linings. 

The impressed patterns on the surfaces of some 
of these flue tiles are quite neat and pretty, and they 
are interesting in the history of design as being 
“all-over patterns.” In some cases at least, they 
seem to have been produced by a roller having a 
unit of the design cut on it in the style of a butter 
print. A tile found in Kent, illustrated by Haver- 
field (Romanization, p. 33), has the inscription: 
“Cabriabanus made this wall-tile” (parietalam)— 


26 LONDINIUM 


“The man who made the tiles apparently incised 
the legend on a wooden cylinder and rolled it over 
the tiles, producing a recurrent inscription.” ‘The 
patterns superseded the scorings and seem to have 
been for the same purpose—to afford a better hold 
for the plaster than a plain face. Fig. 13 is of tiles 
found in Thames Street. Fig. 14 is a fragment 
illustrated in Roach Smith’s Catalogue. 
Inscriptions roughly scratched on tiles led the 
late Dr. Haverfield to the conclusion that ordinary 
workers in Britain wrote Latin. At the Guildhall 


, AW 
x WN , 
ANI 





FIG. 14; 


a tile has a humorous note about a workman who 
went off “‘on his own” too often. In the British 
Museum a tile has Primus, and one from Silchester 
has Sats. 

Floors.—The floors which have been found were 
most generally of concrete, tiles and mosaic. In 
Rochester Museum are some lumps of material 
from concrete floors. ‘There were also floors of 
“ rough stones” and of ‘ chalk stones.” A better 
kind of concrete floor was that known as opus 
signinum, made of lime and broken pottery polished 
on the surface; this made an admirable floor, 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 27 


Another excellent and much used surface was 
obtained by coarse tesserz of tile from I in. to 2 in. 
square; sometimes pieces of yellow, black and 
white were intermixed. In Rochester Museum is a 
tile fragment subdivided by indented lines imitating 
this coarse kind of mosaic, also a square of light buff 
tile. At the Guildhall is a tile a Roman foot square, 
having incised squares. ‘Tiles were of various forms 
and sizes. In the Reading Museum are round and 
polygonal tiles, and a very pretty floor formed of 
such tiles with coarse tessere intermixed. Some 
small paving tiles have been found (not in London) 
with patterns impressed on the surface (Fowler’s 
engravings). In the British Museum is a tile 7 in. 
square, and a large tile about 18 by 14 in. is scored 
on the surface neatly, like the crosses of a Union 
Jack (cf. Fig. 7); it seems to be abraded on the 
surface, and may be a paving tile—if so, it must have 
made an excellent floor. Roach Smith mentions 
large tiles about 2 ft. square and 3 in. thick, and 
some of these are in the British Museum. Such 
tiles, as large as paving slabs, were useful in covering 
hypocausts, spanning the intervals between the little 
piers on which the corners rested. 

In the British Museum and at the Guildhall 
are portions of paving of small tiles set on edge 
in a herring-bone pattern. ‘The former is described 
as having been found at Bush Lane, the latter near 
Dowgate Hill on the Walbrook. ‘“‘ Near by was 
piling and the cill of a bridge which crossed the 
brook from E. to W.” ‘This seems to be the same 
pavement as that described in The Builder, 1884, 
as being on the west bank facing the brook; there 
was a second landing-stage in ‘Trinity Square 
Gardens, on “ the edge of a haven,” with a pavement 


28 LONDINIUM 


over oak piling. (The haven at the tidal inlet to 
Walbrook was doubtless the original port of 
London.) I have seen similar herring-bone pave- 
ment of tiles on edge in Rome. I doubt there 
having been a bridge here. 

Plastering —External walls would mostly have 
been plastered. C. Knight mentioned the dis- 
covery near the Bank of traces of a Roman building, 
and of what was ‘‘ apparently the basis of a Roman 
pillar (circular ?) built of large flat bricks incrusted 
with a very hard cement, in which the mouldings 
were formed exactly as is done in the present day.” 

Rome itself must have been a city of plastered 
walls; the Pantheon, the great Basilica of Con- 
stantine in the Forum, and the splendid Baths were 
all, as may be seen to-day, plastered. The tile 
walls of the Basilica at Tréves were covered with 
red plastering. The Baths at Silchester were 
plastered externally. Of the great villa at Wood- 
chester we are told the walls were “ plastered on 
the outside and painted a dull red colour” (T. 
Wright). At Caerwent the Basilica was plastered 
a reddish-brown colour. ‘The best description I 
have found of such plastering is that in Archeologia 
of a round temple or tomb building found at Holm- 
wood Hill, which was covered outside with ‘a 
mixture of lime and gravel and coarse fragments of 
broken tile. On this was laid a coat of stucco 
composed of lime and tile more minutely broken, 
the latter being rendered very smooth was covered 
with a dark pigment . . . a sort of ochre.” It is 
clear that external plastering was generally finished 
with a red surface. 

Of internal plastering we have many fragments 
covered with painted decoration in the museums ; 


BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 29 


it was generally very thick and smoothly finished 
on the surface; against the floor there was usually 
a projecting quarter-round fillet about 3 in. high, 
of hard cement. Such a skirting was found around 
the Bucklersbury mosaic pavement (Price). Some- 
times a similar fillet ran up the angles of a room, as 
at a bath at Hartlip Villa, illustrated by T. Wright. 
I have seen a similar treatment in Rome, also a 
hollow curve. ; 

Roofs, Windows, etc.—Roofs were generally 
covered with tiles, stone-slates, and doubtless 
thatch. Examples of the two former are in our 
museums. ‘The flat tiles had turned-up edges ; 
these were removed near the top for the next 
tile to lap over. The flanges were covered by 
half-round tiles, larger below than above, so that 
one lapped over the other. The flat tiles were 
frequently if not always of a key-stone shape, so 
that the bottom of the upper one set into the 
wider top of the lower one. (See one figured in 
Allen’s London.) Some have a single nail-hole 
near the top; but others, I suppose, can only have 
been nailed against the slanting sides. (See V. le 
Duc’s article “ Tuille ” for the Romanesque system.) 
In better work ante-fix tiles covered the termina- 
tions of the round tiles at the eaves. ‘“‘ Part of an 
ante-fix of red terra-cotta in the form of a lion’s 
mask ’’ was found in the Strand (V.C.H.). There 
are several in Reading Museum and one in the 
British Museum from Chester. The slates were 
thick and of a pointed shape below, forming diagonal 
lines when laid. Both the stones and tiles were 
very heavy, and must have required strong roof 
timbering. 

Ridges were of tile or stone. A fragment in 


30 LONDINIUM 


the Reading Museum from Silchester has a knob 
rising from the saddle-back of a ridge-tile strangely 
medieval in appearance (Fig. 8). Probably one 





Fic. 16. 


came at each end of the ridge only (cf. V. le Duc’s 
“‘ Faitiére”’). Ridges were frequently terminated by 
stone gable knobs, which have been found in many 
places (see Ward’s Roman Buildings), and occasion- 
ally in such a position as to show that a gable end 
fronted a street. A ridge ter- 


ete 
oot _-Z- mination in Exeter Museum is 
oa CC shown upside down as if it were a 
: corbel (Fig. 15 is a memory sketch, 
' and compare Fig. 16 from Bath). 
a *“ These terminations are late deriva- 


tions from acroteria and proto- 

types of gable crosses; they are 

as links in a continuous chain from 
Greek to Gothic. 

Little joiner’s work has survived to our day. 
Doors would not have been very different from 
our own, as is shown by many examples of framed 
panel work from foreign sites in museums. A 





BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 31 


bronze pivot in the Museum at Westminster Abbey 
must have been a hinge of a door (Fig. 17). Iron 
strap-hinges in the museums are very similar to 
our own. There are two in the British Museum 
(Fig. 18). The plane found at Silchester is evidence 
for joiner’s work. In Leicester Museum is a frag- 
ment of a lion’s head and leg from a piece of 
furniture—probably a table. Turning in a lathe 
was practised, as some wooden dishes at the 
Guildhall show. There are many excellent locks 





Fic. 18. 


and keys and hinges and handles in our 
museums. 

The use of window glass was very general. It 
was cast in small panes, as is shown by the large 
proportion of existing fragments which have edges 
and corners. Practically a whole pane, about 
12 in. by 12 in., isin the Rochester Museum. Near 
Warrington, on a Roman site, was found a stone 
slab with a shallow recess 12 in. by 8 in., which Mr. 
May regarded as a mould for glass (Ward). The 
average size of panes would have been about one 
Roman foot long. Glassware seems to have been 
made in London, Silchester and elsewhere, doubt- 
less from imported “ metal.” Some windows, 


32 LONDINIUM 


possibly unglazed, were protected by iron gratings. 
An iron star X in the Guildhall Museum came 
from such a window guard as is 
shown by a complete example I 
sketched many years ago in the 
Strasbourg Museum (see Arch. Rev., 
May 1913) (Fig. 19). It had been 
suggested that such X-pieces were 
“‘holdfasts,”’ to keep the glass panes 
in position (Ward); but this is not the case; 
moreover, the pane at Rochester shows that it 
was “‘ cemented ”’ into place. 

Lead must have been largely used; there are 
a dozen large “pigs” in the British Museum. 
Melted lead was found at Verulam in a position 
which suggested that it had been used on an im- 
portant building. In the Guildhall Museum are 
some sections of lead water-pipes found in London, 
and at Westminster Abbey is a piece 4 in. in 
diameter, which must, I think, be Roman (Fig. 
18, C). | 

A study of Roman building methods may sug- 
gest to us many points for our consideration and 
emulation. I would especially mention their 
excellent mortar made of crushed tile, opus 
signinum, and coarse tessere floors, cement skirt- 
ings, red external plastering, the tile-shaped brick, 
tile wall linings and down-pipes, hip and gable 
knobs, vaults of box-tiles and pipes, the hypocaust 
system of heating, turning of stonework, painted 
decorations, marble linings, cast leadwork. Some 
day I hope our sterile histories of “ architectural 
styles’? will make way for accounts of practical 
building methods. 


Fic. 19. 


CHAPTER II 


BUILDINGS AND STREETS 


** Set we forward friendly together, so through Lud’s-town march ; 
And in the temple of great Jupiter 
Our peace we'll ratify ; seal it with feasts, 
Set on there!” 


CyMBELINE. 


ASILICA.—In 1880 the extensive founda- 
tions of an important building with massive 
walls were found on the site of Leadenhall 

Market, and a survey of the ruins made by Henry 
Hodge was published in Archeologia (vol. Ixvi.). 
This great building was 
exceptional, not only in 
its scale but in its manner 
of workmanship. I know 
no other case where the 
walls of a building had 
wrought and coursed fac- 
ings like the City Wall 
(Fig. 20). 

io resi Mr. E. P.-L. 
Brock exhibited at a 
meeting of the British Archzological Association 
“¢ plans of excavations recently carried out in Leaden- 
hall Market, showing the foundations of an apse 
33 ft. wide and indications of four different con- 
flagrations. He also exhibited fragments of fresco 
painting with ornamental patterns.... The 

3 





34 LONDINIUM 


building appears to have had the form of a Basilica 
in some respects, with eastern apse, western nave, 
and two chambers like transepts on the south side ” 
(Archeol. \xvi.). From the wording of this it 
appears that Brock meant that the building had a 
general resemblance to an early Christian church. 
Mr. Lambert in publishing Hodge’s drawings in 
Archeologia seems to have understood Brock to 
mean that it was the Civil Basilica of Londinium. 
This, indeed, I have no doubt it was, but at the 
time Brock wrote such buildings in Britain were 
hardly known. 

The Civil Basilica or Public Hall was generally 
the ‘‘ complement of the 
Forum ; it was, in fact, 
a covered Forum used 
for commerce, exchange, 
and administration, or 
simply as a promenade” 
(Daremberg and Saglio). 
At Silchester the Forum 
and Basilica filled an 
“island.” site, apoue 
315 ft. by 2800 eeee 
the centre of the city. 
The Forum was a 
quadrangle included within a single row of build- 
ings on three sides, having a colonnaded walk 
on the inside, while the Basilica occupied the 
fourth side facing the central avenue of the town. 
It was 233 ft. long by 58 ft. wide, and was divided 
into a “nave” and “aisles,” the former being 
terminated at each end by a large apse. In the 
interior were two ranges of Corinthian columns 
about 3 ft. in diameter, some capitals from which 





BUILDINGS AND STREETS 35 


are now in Reading Museum. Cirencester Basilica 
was still larger, being about 77 ft. wide, divided into 
nave and aisles by fine Corinthian columns; at one 
end a great Hemicycle embraced both nave and 
aisles. It must have beena noble building (Fig. 21 
is a restored plan of one end). At Wroxeter the 
Basilica was 67 ft. wide, divided into nave and aisles 
by ranges of Corinthian columns. 

The columns in the interior of the Basilica at 
Caerwent were also of Corinthian fashion: the 
shafts were 3 ft. in diameter and decorated with 
a leaf pattern. Under the floor were wide sleeper 
walls, one of which ran across the front of the 
Tribune. The exterior was covered with reddish- 
brown plastering, and the interior had painted 
decorations of large scale. 

The Basilica at Verulam had a very long hall, 
26 ft. wide and about 360 ft. in length. From it 
three great chambers opened at right angles. The 
central chamber was 40 ft. wide. ‘The others were 
34% ft. wide, having apses at the farther ends 
included within square outer walls. There was 
evidence that these side chambers had been vaulted. 
Some painted wall plaster was found, and it was 
clear that the whole of the interior walls and 
vaults had been painted, mostly in floral designs, 
in dark olive green and other colours. Fragments 
of drapery indicated that there had been figures 
also. In front of the Basilica was a great quad- 
rangle court, with a block of masonry on the central 
axis, which can hardly have been other than a 
pedestal for a statue (see V.C.H.). 

The Basilica at Tréves is built wholly of tile- 
bricks, and was once covered with red plaster, of 
which some fragments remain in the window 


36 LONDINIUM 


jambs. It is about 240 ft. long, the flank wall 
having six bays recessed between pilasters each con- 
taining an upper and a lower window. A large 
apse exists at one end, about 4o ft. wide. It has 
been restored to serve as a church, and is a noble 
building, big and bare. The British Basilicas, so 
far as they are now known, were of the following 
dimensions in width. The English measures may 
probably be equated with Roman feet as suggested : 
Silchester, 58 (60) ; Caerwent, 62 (65) ; Wroxeter, 
67 (70) ; Cirencester, 78 (80) ; Chester, 76 (?). 
The foundations discovered on the site of Lead- 
enhall Market represented some very large and 
exceptional structures. The following account is 
condensed from Mr. Lambert’s description in 
Archeologia: “The plans show at the eastern end 
a quarter-circle of 27 ft. 7 in. radius, which seems 
to represent the eastern apse mentioned by Brock; 
and in continuation of its southern line, a wall 
about 150 ft. long, having the extraordinary breadth 
of 12 ft. 7 in., runs to the line of and apparently 
underneath Gracechurch Street. ... From the 
south side at the east end, spring at right angles 
three walls, which doubtless enclosed the ‘ two 
chambers like transepts’’ mentioned by Brock. .. . 
It is probable that work of different periods is in- 
cluded in this plan. . . . The northern half of the 
great wall appears to be brick, the rest stone or 
rubble, as though one wall had been built along 
the face of another. ... It is ‘cléarwingmeeee 
drawings that the bulk of the eastern portions of 
the remains is homogeneous in structure. The 
extra thickness of the great wall and the fragments 
of solid brick walls at either end of the site repre- 
sent perhaps later additions, . . . These remains 


BUILDINGS AND STREETS 37 


form the most extensive fragment of a Roman 
building recorded within the Walls of London.” 
From the thick mortar joints of the brick walls, 
Mr. Lambert concludes that they were probably 
built in the third or fourth century. The more or 
less alternating use of red and buff bricks, as I have. 
already suggested, is also evidence that this part 
of the work should be assigned to the fourth century. 
Concrete, tessellated and herring-bone floors were 
found, also flue tiles (Price, Athen., 1881). 

Some of the bricks used were of larger size than 
the ordinary, being 20 in. by 124 in., and the draw- 
ings show that they were carefully laid with alter- 
nate headers and stretchers (Fig. 17). They were 
1# in. thick, and four courses made 10% in.; the 
joints were thus about 14 in. thick. At the Guild- 
hall is a fragment of brickwork from Leadenhall 
Market, with bricks and joints both 1% in. thick. 
The stone walling was of concreted rubble, with 
facings on each side in small, roughly-wrought but 
carefully-coursed stones; the layers of bonding 
tiles passed through the thickness of these walls 
(Fig. 20). A large drain ran parallel to the outer 
south wall about 4 ft. wide, including its brick sides. 

The general plan shows a total length from 
the apse at the east to the broken wall at the west 
against Gracechurch Street of about 210 ft. About 
44 ft. to the north of the Great Wall a parallel wall 
is shown on the plan, but no details are given, and 
it may not have been Roman. 

The interior curve of the upper wall of the apse 
had a radius of about 22 ft., and the width of a 
central “‘ nave” agreeing with this can hardly have 
been less than 50 ft.; the total internal width, 
supposing there were “aisles” in line with the 


38 LONDINIUM 


“chambers” at the end, would have been about 
110 ft. There were thick transverse walls across 
the front of the apse, and again about 20 ft. to the 
west. I give (Fig. 22) a plan adapted from Archa@o- 
logia; the walls shown black were not necessarily 
all above the floor level, although they are thinner 
than the lowest foundations. (Note that in the 
plan in Archeologia the scale is given in divisions 
of 12 ft., and not of Io ft. as usual.) 





Pie. 22: 


My plan is restored as a possible reading of the 
evidence; the most certain parts are those in 
black (A) ; the foundations (B) may be of a different 
age ; at the left (C) is the brick pier or wall against 
Gracechurch Street. 

A structure perhaps 110 ft. wide with a central 
avenue of 50 ft. would have been exceptional ; 
on the other hand, a Basilica 220 ft. to 250 ft. long 
including the apse would have been rather short. 
One of the walls found to the west of Gracechurch 


BUILDINGS AND STREETS 39 


Street was bent in its line as if it might have been 
against a stream. ‘The nature of the site might 
have dictated a rather short and very wide building. 
It should be noticed that the line of Gracechurch 
Street is nearly or exactly at right angles to the 
great building. Hodge’s drawings show that the 
walls of Leadenhall Market were built directly 
on the Roman foundations, and hence square with 
them. 

The Basilica would have had ranges of Corinthian 
columns and perhaps a transverse row on the 
foundation in front of the apse, as at the Basilica 
Ulpia in Rome and at Pompeii: compare also the 
transverse walls at the Basilicas of Cirencester and 
Caerwent. The roof would probably have had 
trusses of low pitch exposed to the interior, like 
those of the early Christian churches. 

In 1908 a Roman wall, 34 ft. wide, parallel to 
Gracechurch Street, was found at No. 85. In 
1912 a fine Roman wall, 44 ft. wide, running north 
and south, was found just south of Corbet’s Court ; 
turning at right angles it passed under Gracechurch 
Street. It was of rag-stone with double courses 
of tiles; the base was 27 ft. below the present 
level ; a piece of thinner wall ran close and parallel 
with the roadway (Archeologia, Ixii.). Kelsey 
noted that in 1834 massive walls were found in 
Gracechurch Street from Corbet’s Court to the 
head of the street (Archeologia, |x.). 

The discovery was announced in January 1922 of 
a wall 23 ft. thick of rag-stone and bond tiles “in 
the centre of Gracechurch Street a little south of 
the Cornhill crossing (to the west or left of Fig. 22). 
A length of about to ft. has been disclosed follow- 
ing the central line of Gracechurch Street. The 


40 LONDINIUM 


presence of this Roman building in the middle of 
the highway proves that the medieval street did 
not follow the line of the Roman street. Close at 
hand is Leadenhall. When the present market was 
reconstructed, excavations disclosed remains of an 
important Roman building. It is probable that 
the remains now unearthed are associated with the 
same group of buildings.” Another wall, 44 ft. 
thick, was found at right angles to the thinner wall ; 
the finds were at a depth of about 13 ft. This 
building, which must have been part of the Basilica 
or adjacent to it and square with it, was thus as far 
west as the middle of the street, and doubtless 
farther, for the thinner wall in association with a 
thicker one would not have been an external 
wall. Other walls have recently been found 
under St. Peter’s, Cornhill, corresponding with 
those under Leadenhall Market. ‘‘ All these finds 
seem to be part of a great building more than 
400 ft. long, which crowned the eastern hill of 
London” (Antiquaries Fournal, vol. i. p. 260; 
see also p. 225, below). 

The smaller inset plan on Fig. 22 is a very vision- 
ary reading of the possibilities. A street in line with 
Fish Street Hill and the Bridge, which I will call 
Axis Street, may not have pointed to the centre of 
this great building, but rather by its west end as 
suggested (X). If this is too far west for the Axis 
Street, then we must suppose that it was directed 
towards some point in the south front of the Forum. 
(It is desirable that all the walls found in this 
locality should be accurately laid down on a plan.) 
A parallel street to the east, which I will call North 
Gate Street (Y), would not be in continuation with 
Axis Street. The question whether Bishopsgate 


BUILDINGS AND STREETS 41 


and Gracechurch Street represent a Roman street 
from the Bridge to the Gate has been much argued 
over (see Archeéologia, 1906), and it seems to have 
been shown that the line was interrupted in some 
way. The southern part, however, must, I think, 
represent the Roman street from the Bridge, al- 
though it may later have been bent aside to tend 
more directly to Bishopsgate. ‘The facts and the 
fault in the line may be reconciled in some such 
way as suggested. (Hodge’s drawings are in the 
old Gardner collection, and it would be interesting 
to know what other Roman records are included.) 
Beyond the statement quoted from Brock no 
identification of the building is offered in Archeo- 
logia, and Mr. Bushe-Fox thought that if the walls 
were contemporary they could not belong to a 
Basilica. ‘‘If there were a nave with two aisles 
and an apse there would be no reason for the cross 
wall, nor for the excessive thickness of the side wall. 
The building had perhaps been a bath; the wall 
which ended abruptly at the west end was probably 
a flue for heating the apse, and the large drain 
would be accounted for’ (Proceedings, 1914-5). 
That the building was indeed the civil Basilica of 
Londinium is proved to my mind by: A comparison 
of the plan with those of other British Basilicas— 
notice the way that the apse is within straight 
external walls, and compare Fig. 21; by the great 
scale of the work; by its central position in the 
City; by the scale and character of the construction ; 
by the fact that the only possible alternative seems 
to be the supposition that it was the great Bath of 
the City, and for this neither the planning nor the 
situation seems suitable; by the exceptional wall 
decorations described below; by the fact that a 


yee LONDINIUM 
tile bearing the official stamp PR-BRILON was 


found on the site (Price). It is a remarkable fact 
that Leadenhall was the market, and that the 
Crossing at Cornhill was the carfax of London 
during the Middle Ages. 

We have seen above that Brock said that frag- 
ments of painting were found on the site. In the 
British Museum are four pieces of wall-painting, 
given by Mr. Hilton Price—1 and 2 in 1882, and 
3 and 4 in 1883; the first pair are said to be from 
Leadenhall, the second pair from Leadenhall 
Market. One and 3 are fragments of large scale 
scrolls of ornamental foliage of a grey-green colour ; 
2 is a piece of large-scale drapery, and 4 is part of a 
life-sized foot. ‘These four remarkable fragments 
evidently form one group and came from the 
Basilica. ‘The large scale of the ornament and 
figure work differentiates these pieces of painted 
plaster from all others found in London. At 
Silchester and Cirencester fragments of marble 
wall linings have been found on the sites of the 
Basilicas, and some of the marble fragments in the 
British Museum may have come from our Basilica, 
which must have been a handsome, indeed splendid, 
civic centre. In the Forum would have been 
statues of Emperors, and in the Basilica some im- 
personation of Londinium itself (cf. the fragment 
of such a figure found at Silchester, now at . 
Reading). 

Houses—In 1869 a mosaic pavement was dis- 
covered in Bucklersbury which is now at the 
Guildhall (Butlder, May 15 and 29). It was fully 
described in a volume by Price. The floor was 
that of a small round-ended chamber, and belonged 
to a building on the western bank of the Walbrook, 





BUILDINGS AND STREETS 43 
Around the apsidal end of the room which had the 


mosaic was a wall of stone and chalk, built upon 
piling ; this wall contained the flues of the heating- 
system, and it terminated in piers at the ends of the 
semicircle. From the fact that no more walling 
was found and the evidence of an attached lobby 
which had a wooden sill around it, we may suppose 
that the rest of the house was of timber work 
(Fig. 23). ‘The curved apse would be a strong 
form in which to build a mass of wall to contain 
the vertical wall flues; and it is an interesting 
example of building contrivance. We have already 





seen that timber and clay construction was frequent 
in Londinium. Near this building a well was 
found (built of square blocks of chalk, The Builder 
says). ‘This building with the mosaic floor must 
have been a superior house on the bank of the Wal- 
brook. ‘To the west, as we shall see, seems to have 
been a street possibly of shops; we can thus 
imagine a little group of buildings and streets, 


44 LONDINIUM 


and a bridge over the Walbrook at the end of 
Bucklersbury. 

The well mentioned above is one of a great 
number which have been discovered ; for instance, 
in excavating for Copthall Avenue “a pit or well, 
boarded, and filled with earthenware vessels,” etc., 
was found (Builder, October 5, 1889). Such wells 
with boarding like a long barrel have been excavated 
at Silchester. Again to the south of Aldgate High 
Street two wells were found (Builder, May 3, 1884). 

The most complete Roman building which 
has been recovered and planned is one excavated 





Fic. 24. 


in Lower Thames Street in 1848 and again in 1859 
(Builder, February 5, 1848, and June 11, 1859). 
A restored plan was given in the Fournal of the 
British Archeological Association, vol. xxiv. (see 
Fig. 21). ‘The two apsed chambers had hypocausts 
beneath their floors, supported on little piers built 
of tiles 8% in. square, and broken materials. Fig. 
25 is reproduced from the illustration of the eastern 
chamber given in: The Builder. Several sketches 
and some notes, by Fairholt, of this building are 
in the Victoria and Albert Museum. About 4 or 
5 ft. of the walls remained in places, all of tiles 
with mortar joints nearly as thick as themselves. 


OSI Ul JoaIIG soley], JaMO'T UI polaAOsIp suoTIepuNnoy 


(‘iaquieys jo suonepunogz ‘py farm ong e YIM yomyorIG ‘gq ‘Aruoseur plo ‘w)—Sz ‘oI 





46 LONDINIUM 


“The walls were of red and yellow brick in alternate 
layers composed of 18 in. tiles.” Outside the walls 
was ‘‘a drain of wooden planks, 18 in. deep by 10 
wide, running towards the river” (see plan). The 
walls were erected on piles. The sketches show 
some of the box-flue tiles which had impressed 
patterns (see Fig. 25). Some additional informa- 
tion is given on a lithograph by A. J. Stothard 
(1848). ‘The walls were 3 ft. thick. Above the 
floor of the south room, which was of coarse red 
and yellow tesserz, was a second, about a foot 
higher in level; this was “a layer of red concrete 
2% in. thick, hard, and the upper surface almost. 
glazed’? (compare a floor found in Eastcheap, 
“concrete stuccoed over and painted red.”— 
V.C.H.). This building was doubtless a house ; 
at the time it was found it was called a bath, but 
it seems too small to have been even a secondary 
public bath. As Thos. Wright says: ‘‘ Many writers 
have concluded hastily that every house with a 
hypocaust was a public bath”’ (cf. the plan of a house 
at Lymne, The Roman, etc., p. 160). The stoke- 
hole of the hypocaust was at F, and there were flues 
up the middle wall and the western apse. The 
large room was 23 ft. square; some tiles of 2 ft. 
square were found here, also window glass and an 
iron key. The plan lay square with the south 
City Wall (Fig. 24), and the building can hardly 
be earlier than this wall. It may thus be accepted 
as a late fourth-century house, and we may further 
infer that box-tiles with impressed patterns were 
a characteristic of this century. On two sides of 
the house were lanes about Io ft. wide. As in so 
many cases modern walls seem to have been laid 
out on the same alignment as the Roman building. 





BUILDINGS AND STREETS 47 


The house just described had two apses, and the 
Bucklersbury house also had an apse. This was in 
agreement with general custom. As Thos. Wright 
remarked: ‘‘One peculiarity which is observed 
almost invariably in Roman houses in Britain is that 
one room has a semicircular alcove, and in some 
instances more than one room possesses this adjunct.” 
In the plan given in Archeologia of the Roman 
walls and floors found in and about Lombard Street 
in 1785 two apses seem to be indicated; thus we 
have evidence for five in the scanty records ; 
altogether there must have beén scores in the 
city. 

Within the walls of the City were many large 
houses of the villa type as well as minor dwellings 
and streets of shops. Roach Smith speaks of such 
great houses about Crosby Square ; he also describes 
a mosaic floor under Paternoster Row which ex- 
tended 40 ft. ; a second important floor on the site 
of India House, Leadenhall Street, was at least 
22 ft. square, and may have been considerably 
more; a third large floor which was found under 
the Excise Office, Broad Street, was about 28 ft. 
square (probably 30 Roman ft.). All these must 
have been the floors of the chief central rooms of 
large houses of the villa type. ‘Tite saw this of the 
Broad Street floor as his speaking of the “ triclinium, 
other rooms, and the garden” shows. This Broad 
Street pavement was lying square with more modern 
walls surrounding it, and it may not be doubted 
that buildings continuously occupied the site. 

The supposition that there were important 
houses of the villa type within the walls of the City 
has been fully confirmed by the excavations at 
Silchester, and I may here quote Dr. Haverfield’s 


48 LONDINIUM 


general conclusions as to Roman towns in Britain. 
‘Roman British towns were of fair size, Roman 
London, perhaps even Roman Cirencester were 
larger than Roman Cologne or Bordeaux. They 
possessed, too, the buildings proper to a Roman 
town—town hall, market-place, public baths, chess- 
board street-plan, all of Roman fashion; they had 
also shops and temples and here and there a hotel. 
. . . [The dwelling-houses in them were not town 
houses fitted to stand side by side to form regular 
streets; they were country houses, dotted about 
like cottages in a village. But in one way or an- 
other and to a real amount, Britain shared in that 
expansion of town life which formed a special 
achievement of the Roman Empire.” ‘The evidence 
as to the isolation of the houses is here a little 
overstated, but in the main the passage gives a 
true impression. Fragments of wall decorations and 
mosaics found in Southwark suggest that there were 
big houses on that side of the river, and doubt- 
less others occupied sites along the Strand and 
Holborn. 

I give here a little sketch plan (Fig. 26) of a house 
found about a century since at Worplesdon, Surrey, 
from a survey at the 
Society of Antiquaries. 
This house is interest- 
ing as its unaltered plan 
gives an example of 
a simple ‘‘ Corridor 
House.” It was 62 ft. 

Fic, 26. long by 22% ft. wide 

within the foundations, 

and faced west. The slight foundations of flint, 
not much more than a foot wide, show that the walls 





BUILDINGS AND STREETS 49 


must have been of timbering or wattle work. The 
rooms and passage had floors of plain coarse tessere, 
except that the outer side of the passage had a simple 
twist border in mosaic. Possibly there had been 
some pattern in the central room as the floor was 
there missing, and a note reads: ‘‘ Near this place 
was found the lozenge-shaped tessellated pave- 
ment.’ 

Baths, Temples, etc—Remnants of important 
buildings have been found in Cannon Street from 
time to time, and London Stone is probably a 
fragment of one of them. Wren was of the opinion 
“by reason of its large foundations that it was 
some more considerable monument in the Forum; 
for in the adjoining ground to the south were 
discovered some tessellated pavements, and other 
extensive remains of Roman workmanship and 
buildings.” Under Cannon Street a building with 
one apartment 4o ft. by 50 ft., and many other 
chambers, is mentioned in V.C.H. At Dowgate 
Hill the foundations of large edifices are listed in 
V .C.H., and of Bush Lane it is remarked: ‘That 
there must have been extensive buildings here seems 
clear.” At Trinity Lane, Great Queen Street, 
“great portions of immense walls with bonding 
tiles”? have been found (V.C.H.). There was a 
house on the south side of St. Paul’s known as 
Camera or Domus Diane which may have taken 
its name from some Roman monument. In a 
St. Paul’s deed of 1220 it appears as a messuage or 
inn, domum que fuit Diane. 

In December 1921 Mr. Lambert described the 
foundations of a building by Miles Lane. The 
plan of this suggested a house of the corridor type 
facing east. The site seems to have been levelled 


4 


50 LONDINIUM 


up by timber walling or wharfing against the river 
and running back into the sloping ground. 

One of the most important public buildings in 
the City would have been the Public Baths, as 
those of Silchester and Wroxeter show. At Tréves 
the great Baths cover acres of ground by the river. 
Bagford says that after the fire of London some 
Roman water pipes were found in Creed Lane 
“which had been carried round a Bath that was 
built in a round form with niches at equal intervals 
for seats.” ‘This suggests a part of important 
Baths, and Creed Lane does not seem an unlikely 
situation for the Public Baths. (In V.C.H. the site 
is said to have been in Ludgate Square.) 

The only certain evidence we have for Temples 
are some inscriptions and sculptures. For the 

most part they would, like those found 

at Silchester and elsewhere, have been 

small square and polygonal struc- 

tures set on a rather high podium 

approached by steps. Fig. 27 is a 

restored plan of the little Temple 

* found at Caerwent. Doubtless here 
Fic. 27. and in most cases, the roof of the 
cella ran on to cover the podium. 

At the foot of the steps an external altar would 
have stood. The column illustrated before (Fig. 
I) seems suitable for a temple. Roach Smith, 
speaking of the group of Mother Goddesses found 
in Crutched Friars (see Builder, October 30, 
1847), says: “It is the only instance with the 
exception of the discovery made in Nicholas Lane 
in which the site of a temple can with reason be 
identified ” ([lJ. Rom. Lon., p. 33). The find in 


Nicholas Lane was part of an important and early 


BUILDINGS AND STREETS 51 


inscription which may have been on the chief temple 
in Londinium. Some sculptures found on the bank 
of the Walbrook suggest that a cell of Mithras 
occupied the site. In the fourth century a Christian 
church would, as at Silchester, have occupied an 
important site in the City. 

A large Theatre or Amphitheatre, or both, 
would have been necessary in such a town. Roach 
Smith, who had a wonderful instinct of insight, 
thought that such a building probably occupied 
a site against the bank of the Fleet, called “‘ Break- 
neck Steps.” Lately it has been suggested that 
the drawing-in of the line of the City Walls at the 
north-west angle was done to avoid an amphi- 
theatre ; more probably, I think, it was to avoid 
wet ground. There is evidence that gladiator 
contests and chariot races were popular. For 
gladiators, compare two small bone figures at the 
British Museum, evidently from one shop, with the 
fragment of a little statuette at the Guildhall. 
The bronze trident-head, also at the Guildhall, 
really does seem to be a gladiator’s weapon as 
suggested in the catalogue. For chariot races, see 
the fragments of glass bowls, which may have been 
made in London, in the British Museum. I have 
found an additional little point of evidence on 
chariot races. Amongst Fairholt’s sketches at the 
Victoria and Albert Museum, is one of an enig- 
matical little fragment of a Castor vase, found in 
Bishopsgate Street, which seems to represent four 
heads of dogs running neck and neck. Now there 
is a whole vase in the British Museum (found in 
Colchester) which was practically a replica of the 
other, and this shows that the four running animals 
of the fragment were chariot horses, and the whole 


52 LONDINIUM 


represented a race. Above the horses of the frag- 
ment is scratched i1Tatvs, which, I suggest, must 
have been the name of some favourite “ winner ” 
in Londinium. 

Streets—In his account of the Bucklersbury 
pavement, Price describes also some walls which 
were found “ about 30 yds. westerly from the pave- 
ment ” (the position is shown on his plan). ‘“ Two 
Roman walls running nearly in line with Bucklers- 
bury directly towards the Walbrook.” In the space 
between them had been laid a drain to fall towards 
the brook with a tile pavement above, and mortar 
fillets against the walls. The walls were 2# ft. 
thick, and built on three rows of piles, and the 
space between was 23 ft. ‘The tiles are of the usual 
kind of red and yellow brick. Above these walls 
were others of chalk and stone 3 ft. apart, of later 
date. This is one of a great number of instances 
where we find that medizval buildings were founded 
directly on Roman walls. ‘The space Price suggested 
was “* an open passage-way, or it may be of an alley 
between two buildings.” Comparison makes it 
certain that the walls were those of neighbouring 
houses in a street; similar conditions have been 
found at Caerwent, Silchester, etc. At the former 
“the shops along the main street were probably 
roofed with gables; this is substantiated by the 
finding of a finial in front of a house. ‘The narrow 
space between the houses would serve to carry 
away the water which would drop from the 
eaves”? (Archeol., 1906). The walls are shown 
in Fig. 28. 

The Bucklersbury paved passage, only just wide 
enough for a man to get at it, with the underlying 
drain, is obviously a similar space. ‘The tradition of 


BUILDINGS AND STREETS 53 


dividing houses in streets from one another in this 
way lasted into the Middle Ages (see V. le Duc’s Dict., 
‘* Maison ”’) and, of course, occasionally to modern 
times. By this means party walls and difficult roof 
gutters are avoided. From the two parallel walls 
we are justified in inferring a row of houses— 
possibly shops—and a street running to the west 
of them; moreover, the example suggests to some 
extent what continuous streets of houses must have 
been like. In Southwark a passage-way between 
houses was found 3 ft. 8 in. wide. A wall with tile 





Fig. 28. 


paving against the outside, found under the Mansion 
House, suggests a similar passage. 

It has been mentioned above how in several 
cases, as is clear even from our imperfect records, 
that later walls were founded directly on Roman: 
walls. Modern buildings were thus in direct and 
unbroken succession to Roman ones and maintained 
the same alignment. In the Archer collection at 
the British Museum is a drawing of “a Roman 
pavement and foundations, supposed to be remains 
of ‘Tower Royal” in Cannon Street ; this again was 
square with modern work. Roman remains have 
been found under several churches. Massive walls 
of chalk were found under St. Benet’s, Gracechurch. 
Roach Smith, speaking of a floor found at the corner 


54 LONDINIUM 


of Clement’s Lane, says: ‘‘ This adds another to the 
numerous instances of churches in London standing 
on foundations of Roman buildings.” In 1724 
Roman foundations were found under St. Mary, 
Woolnoth, and “three foundations of churches in 
the same place”? (Minutes Soc. Ant., June 17). 
Even Westminster Abbey and St. Martin’s in the 
Fields were built on Roman sites, and so probably 
was St. Andrew’s, Holborn. 

This continuity of the buildings from the Roman 
Age is not only an interesting fact, but it is a strong 
argument for the general continuity of the street 
lines as well. ‘The plan of the extensive finds in 
and about Lombard Street in 1785 shows the build- 
ing to have conformed very much to lines parallel 
with, and at right angles to St. Swithin, Sherborne, 
Abchurch, Nicholas, Birchin and Clement’s Lanes, 
and I cannot doubt that these lanes are in some 
degree the successors of Roman streets. In “ Lom- 
bard Street and Birchin Lane the discoveries are 
said to have indicated a row of houses’ (V.C.H.). 
If all the evidence as to the “ orientation ” of build- 
ings and walls was laid down on a plan, merely 
marking the direction of the minor ones with a 
cross, we might build up further results in regard to 
the direction of the streets. At the same time it 
would be vain to expect any large and simple scheme 
of lay-out of the chess-board type, the Walbrook 
and other streams, and probably the persistence of 
some earlier lines (Watling Street to St. Albans ?) 
would have interfered with that. The Walbrook 
seems to have been crossed by two chief bridges, 
which must have been governing facts in the lay- 
out. One was at Bucklersbury, the other, Horseshoe 
Bridge farther south, is recorded from the thir- 


BUILDINGS AND STREETS 55 


teenth century. Cannon Street, I cannot doubt, 
represents one east to west street. ‘Thames Street 
must have been formed when the south City Wall 
was built. I have spoken of the north-south 
lines above. Saint Benet ‘“‘Gerschereche” is 
mentioned in a charter of 1053 (A4then., February 3, 
1906). 

Wren found a “ causeway’? made up of stones 
and tiles by Bow Church (under the present tower). 
It is suggested in V.C.H. that this was an embank- 
ment, but causeway was one of the regular names for 
a Roman road. At Rochester one 5 ft. or 6 ft. 
thick of hard stuff has been found crossing some soft 
ground. — 

The best way now to see again the old Roman 
City of London is to go to the foot of the hill below 
St. Magnus the Martyr and then, turning away 
from the riverside quays of the seaport, to walk up 
the street which still retains something of the look 
of a High Street in an old market town. Behind it 
we may still discern the ghost of the Roman Axis 
Street. Right and left are narrow streets with red 
plastered houses separated by little “ drangways.” 
Here at a corner is a small temple with a dedication 
to the deified emperor. There is the great City 
Bath. Farther on is the civic centre, the market- 
place and hall; one, a square piazza containing 
imperial statues in gilt bronze, and the other a big 
building having internal ranks of tall Corinthian 
columns, a wide apse, and an open timber roof— 
sombre but noble. Round about are many isolated 
and widespreading mansions, one doubtless being 
the palace of the Governor of the province. Beyond 
are the walls and gates which will be next described, 
and in the background rise the northern heaths 






and wooded hills now called Hampstead 4 


Highgate. 
“On alien ground, breathing an alien air, oe 
A Roman stood, far from his ancient home, 
And gazing, murmured, ‘Ah, the hills are fair, 
But not the hills of Rome.’” k 
Mary E, Cauenenees 
' 
! 
\ 
3M . 
s 
oa \ 
oe =a re 
in, 


ove he 


Starr RMT TI 
WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 


“Gem of all Joy and Jasper of Jocundity, 
Strong be thy walls that about thee stand ; 
London, thou art the flower of cities all.” 
Wii1i1amM Dunsar. 


HE walls, gates and bastions of the City may 
be traced by the record of early maps such 
as that of Braun and Hogenberg. The 

bastions of the east side are particularly shown on a 
plan of Holy Trinity Priory made in the sixteenth 
century ; the west side from Ludgate to Cripple- 
gate plainly appears in Hollar’s plan after the fire, 
1667. ‘There were two bastions between Ludgate 
and Newgate, then an angle bastion to the north; 
three more on the straight length to Aldersgate, 
then one beyond that gate at the angle where the 
wall turned north again; two bastions occurred 
between this angle and the bastion at the corner 
where the wall again turned east, which now exists 
in Cripplegate Churchyard. 

Several of the gates stood until 1760. In an 
old MS. book of notes I find under the heading 
“Remarkable Transactions in ye Mayoralty of 
Sir J. Chitty.’—“In July, ye gates of Aldgate, 
Cripplegate and Ludgate were sold by public 
auction in ye council chamber, Guildhall, and 
were accordingly taken down without obstruct- 

. 57 P 


58 LONDINIUM 


ing either ye foot or cartway, and their sites laid 
into ye streets. Aldgate for £157, 10s.; Cripple- 
gate, £93; and Ludgate for 148.” Many old 
drawings of parts of the wall are preserved in the 
Crace, the Archer and other collections. ‘The exact 
line of the wall and positions of the bastions has 
been verified by modern excavations and discoveries. 
For full description and a plan, see the Victoria 


County History and Archeologia, \xii. (1912). A 









cath yy \\ 
_ ayy 
\ V4 \ \h \ 






\ 


e it P 
\ \ 
) i 


r 





Fic. 29. See p. 61. 


good description of what was visible in 1855 is 
given in The Builder for that year. 

In September 1903 an important section of 
the Roman wall was found in excavating the site 
of Newgate Prison; in some parts it was about a 
dozen feet high. I saw it in October and noted— 
“The wall is about 84 ft. wide. On the outside 
and inside one or two courses of facing stones were 
first raised and the core of rubble was then filled 
in to that height; first there was a thick couch 
of mortar, then a layer of rubble stones, then 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 59 


another liberal supply of mortar running down 
between the stones as grout; there were two or 
three such levellings-up in the heights between the 
tile bonding courses.” The wall had a rough 
rubble foundation, then a course of plinth stones 
on the outside, with three tile courses corresponding 
to it on the inside of 

the wall, then fol- ‘Q2Gdb:Gs .e. 
lowed five courses of = pA PS Pat SS 
the fairly square fac- bp lege Die ll He 
ing stones on both POR UAT WI ar 
sides of the wall, then  "S3C : 
two rows of tile, five =a Seas 
courses more stone (8 wsh 0 Ey a? 
and two rows of tile, == Sas ae Sa 

then five more stone onion: ; 
courses; above this awe! 50, SBD wea 
level the wall had OE ce Ls 
been destroyed. The Spl te R i MOR Y Ae 


stones and tiles were vas I Aan oS 
; SITS ORS OES File 
set in mortar, and the .& Sek ae ‘a ae ae is 


ma 4 Kot 
latter, except for the Era OTERO 


ai 
& fay 
Su 


® 
A) 
AY) 

( a 
hee 


\ 


¢, 
af 
AAD 
Wwe 
2) 
oy 
‘a 


ie <ixl ae a eases ONS ie 
three courses at the 2nnvnce ct ee ee 
b hatenide chee. fe ts Pee itt 
ottom on the inside, tr" 3 th eg Ee SS ha 
m= elt ort “3 le Se gis ees, re snl? 

Por gm oe Ge oS ~ wp 


which served as a 
plinth, were carried Fic. 30. 

right through the 

thickness of the wall; the ‘‘ tiles’? were Roman 
bricks about 18 in. by 12 in. and 14 in. thick, laid 
in what we call Flemish bond. ‘The stone facing 
courses were a little higher at the bottom than up- 
wards, but all were comparatively small and square ; 
there was a clear distinction between the wrought 
facings and the rubble filling, which was practically 
concrete. The ‘“ facings’ were hard skins adher- 


60 LONDINIUM 


ing to the filling and required by the method of 
building as described above (Fig. 30). 

The mode of construction of the wall is likely 
to be misunderstood when we speak as we almost 
necessarily do of facings and filling and of bond 
tiles. The ‘‘ facing” stones were small, roughly 
wrought, and set in much mortar; they formed 
outer skins to the concreted mass into which they 
tailed back. The whole was homogeneous. The 
method was analogous to the facing of concrete 
with triangular bricks notching back into the core. 

The tile courses in the City Wall were doubtless 
bonds, but they also divided the wall into strata 
locking up the moisture of the mortar from too 
rapid absorption and evaporation. I have little 
doubt that the wall was carried up a stratum at a 
time over long lengths; it would thus have been 
available as a defence from an early stage, and 
scaffolding would not have been required. The 
building of this wall and casting the ditch about it 
required a great constructive effort. A strip of 
ground some 100 feet wide must have been cleared 
as a preliminary. ‘Then the immense quantity of 
stone required would have been brought by ships 
and barges. It is often said that old material was 
not re-used in the wall, but I can hardly think that 
two miles of chamfered plinth had to be provided 
out of new stone at the very beginning of the 
work. And material from destroyed monuments 
was doubtless broken up for the small facing stones. 
The lime-burning, brick-making, stone-cutting, as 
well as the actual building, called for much labour. 
It would be interesting to have the quantities taken 
out and an estimate prepared. 

The south wall along the river front is well 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 61 


described in V.C.H. Roach Smith, in an article 
in vol. 1. of the Archeological ‘fournal, recorded the 
fact that it had “alternate layers of red and yellow 
plain and curve-edged (1.¢. flanged) tiles”; the 
rest being of ragstone and flint. It was founded on 
piles. In The Builder (January 19, 1912) it is re- 
corded that in digging for a foundation at No. 125 
Lower Thames Street, between Fish Street Hill 
and Pudding Lane, there was found the base of the 
Roman wall resting upon long and thick timber 
balks laid crosswise, with piles beneath them ; there 
were three courses of rough rag and sandstone 
capped with two courses of yellow bonding tiles, 
all in reddish mortar; what remained was about 
3 ft. high and Io ft. wide, and was at 24 ft. below 
the existing pavement. Full evidence of the course 
of the City Wall along the river front has been 
found (4rcheol. xliii.). It may be noticed that in 
medieval regulations foreign sailors might not go 
beyond Thames Street; that is, pass where the 
wall had been, into the City proper. This south 
wall, like the bastions, contained remnants of Roman 
monuments. | 

The south wall would have been interrupted 
at the outlet of the Walbrook, which must have 
been a tidal creek. This was doubtless the original 
harbour, and there would have been quays within 
the line of the wall. Daremberg and Saglio’s plan 
of Bordeaux shows a remarkable parallel to Lon- 
dinium, standing on the bank of a great river, 
flanked by a little stream and with a port within 
the walls (Fig. 29). It seems probable that the 
strong wall which Roach Smith reports as having 
been found on the east side of the Walbrook may 
have been a quay wall. The Thames has been 


62 LONDINIUM 


much encroached on where it passes the City. In 
making the approach to new London Bridge three 
successive embankments were found, one being of 
squared trunks of trees. A similar timber wall 
has just been found in Miles Lane. In Lower 
Thames Street the Roman house found on its 
north side was built on piles, “‘ probably on the 
river bank” (dthen., 1848), and the south City 
Wall was wholly built on timbering. In earlier 
Londinium, Cannon Street must have been the 
southern thoroughfare. 

Bastions.—In July 1909, when the angle bastion 
near Giltspur Street was excavated, I noted that 
close to it the City Wall was badly fractured, and 
inclined outwards; there had evidently been a 
serious settlement here, which was sufficiently 
accounted for by the nature of the ground—wet 
clay on the bank of a stream. ‘The wall was taken 
lower than the ordinary level here, and the bastion 
was founded at a lower level still. ‘The bastion was 
not bonded to the City Wall, but merely built 
against it with a straight joint; it was of horse- 
shoe shape on plan and projected about 27 ft., the 
masonry was rubble in thin courses, and the whole 
looked medieval to me. In the careful report in 
Archeologia it was said that some evidence for 
Roman date was discovered in the foundation. 
The facts suggested to me not only that the bastion 
had been built against the wall, but that it was 
probably built at a point of failure in the original 
wall. It is agreed that the bastions were built 
later than the wall, and with a straight joint between 
them and it, and I would suggest that they were 
built to cover cracks and form buttresses as well 
as for their additional defensive value, and this 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 63 


may very well have been the general procedure. It 
would have been impossible to build a wall measured 
by miles on inferior foundations without bad settle- 
ments ; the Egyptians provided for them by build- 
ing such walls in sections with inclined straight 
joints at intervals. | 

M. Blanchet, writing of the walls of the cities of 
Gaul, says: ‘“‘ Often the curtains are not bonded 
with the towers. ‘This independence reminds one 
of a precept of Philo’s, which advises that the 
method should be followed so as to prevent the con- 
sequences of unequal settlement between the two. 
But there is a more simple explanation—the town 
under immediate danger ensures itself first with the 
curtain and adds the towers after. Most of the 
fortifications are those which the Romans built on 
the approach of the Barbarian invasions. To this 
period belong the walls of Rome and those of the 
cities of Gaul.” Choisy again has an interesting 
account of the towers of the walls of Constantinople, 
with a diagram of arches in the sides of the towers 
at the ground level, which were built so that the 
effective part of their foundations should be kept 
clear of the wall. Now, the foundations of the 
London bastions provide evidence of a similar way 
of thinking. 

In Fig. 31 I give a sketch of this angle bastion 
made on July 5, 1909. Here is seen the City Wall 
curving round from the north to the west, and 
- against it the bastion. The Roman wall was badly 
cracked and leaning outward (A); in the corner 
by the bastion the plinth and the foundation are 
seen, and below a sloping bank of wet clay (C), and 
farther out water (W). The bastion was built of 
rubble, and was hollow to the base; the form was 


64 _ LONDINIUM 


different below and above (see B). In the sketch 
the tile courses are seen going through the thickness 
of the wall. 

The bastions which have been most carefully 
examined are those on the site of the General Post 


Office, described in Archeologia, lxill. (1912). One 


€¢ 


is said to have been built in “‘ the usual manner of 










~- —™. x S 
KE 
en aaa he fi 
—>- = ney ery) 
: (Hal 





random rubble’’; it was separate from the City 
Wall, and the foundation was deeper than that of 
the wall. A second was built in a very soft spot. 
‘Why it should have been selected 1s not easy to see, 
as at a little distance either way the builders could 
have found firm soil.” Its site was an old stream 
bed, and the conditions might well be the cause 
of a settlement at the point. This, as suggested 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 65 


above, may have been the reason the bastion was 
erected just here. (For the bastion by Giltspur 
Street, see §. 4. Proceedings, 2 S. xxii. 476.) 
Nothing very definitely Roman was found in 
these bastions, but one at All Hallows was certainly 
Roman. This is described as (I condense) “ built 
of stonework which, like the rest, so far as they have 
been observed, is of random rubble, built principally 
of irregular pieces and ragstone with portions of 
Roman tile (none complete) and other material ; 
much of it appears to have done duty in some 
previous building. A base was formed of large 
square stones a uniform height of 2 ft.; they had 
been employed in some former building; several 
had lewis holes. ‘This base rested on a table of large 
flat stones 9 in. thick. Most of these seem to have 
been portions of a cornice. Roman origin was 
shown by red mortar in which the joints had been 
set.” The foundation was about 3 ft. below that 
of the City Wall, and projected into the original 
Roman ditch. What is called the “‘ table”? above 
was a square-fronted lower base; the back of this 
base was set in advance of the City Wall; indeed, 
it was 3 ft. in front of it on the eastern side and “‘ the 
gravel in this intervening space was undisturbed.” 
This gap is specially to be noted. ‘The description 
of the masonry as random rubble must apply mainly 
to the core of the work, for the illustrations show 
an approximation to courses on the face ; indeed, on 
the east side, thirteen courses may be counted in the 
photograph up to a line which seems to be the top 
of a sloping plinth; these courses averaged about 
4% in. high. The full significance of this account 
is only brought out on comparing it with Price’s 
description of what was found in excavating the 
5 


66 LONDINIUM 


Camomile Street bastion. ‘This bastion was founded 
on two deep courses of heavy stones taken from 
Roman buildings, many sculptured, and having 
lewis holes in them. ‘These masonry courses were 
set 1 ft. in advance of the City Wall, one over the 
other, forming a straight joint, and leaving a gap 
“‘ separated from the wall by an intervening space 
filled with rubble” (Price) which was filled with 
small stones. ‘This curious and carefully-arranged 
construction in both bastions was clearly with the 
object of making the foundations of the bastions 
take their bearings away from the wall so that they 
would tend to lean inwards 
against the wall; it is analo- 
gous to the arches of the 
Constantinople towers. ‘This 
bastion had a batter or slope 
at the bottom of about 4 ft. 
high. Price describes the 
masonry as “‘ rag rubble wall- 
ing faced with random courses. The size of the 
blocks of which the facing was composed varied 
from 3 in. to 84 in. thick [high] and from 5 in. 
to 14 in. long.” This account is supported by 
the carefully- executed illustrations which show 
coursed facings of small stones which seem almost 
identical with the facings of the City Wall. Such 
masonry of small facing “‘ blocks” with concreted 
rubble behind is certainly Roman. The masonry at 
the All Hallows bastion seems to have approximated 
to the same character; there it may be noticed the 
courses became narrower upwards. ‘This was cer- 
tainly not so regular as the masonry of the City 
Wall, but it may be said to have resembled it 


(Fig. 32). 





WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 67 
At the Guildhall Museum is “a group of archi- 


tectural remains and fragments of sculptured stones 
from tombs, public buildings, etc., found in a 
bastion of London Wall, Duke Street, Aldgate, 
1881.” ‘This find is best described in The Atheneum 
for that year. Mr. Watkins, while excavating in 
Houndsditch and Duke Street, found the City 
Wall and a mass of masonry extending 18 ft. out- 
ward from the wall; the stones were dressed and 
weighed from I cwt. to1¢¥ tons. “In the structure 
he observed a channel 15 in. deep by 18 in. wide, 
which showed signs of use as a watercourse. It had 
been filled with concrete composed of chalk and 
flints. ‘The site was the foundation of one of the 
bastions composed of sculptured stones in character 
similar to those previously recorded, upwards of 
twenty in number.” ‘This was the second bastion 
east of Bishopsgate. The channel filled with con- 
crete suggests a gap dividing the bastion from the 
City Wall as already described ; but see also account 
i y..G.i2. 

In 1887 Mr. Loftus Brock reported to the British 
Archeological Association the, removal of part of 
the City Wall on the east side of Wormwood Street. 
Nearly opposite Bevis Marks Synagogue the founda- 
tion of a circular-fronted bastion was found of 
worked freestones and not bonded into the main wall 
(The Builder, May 28, 1887). A paper by J. E. 
Price in 1884 (London and Middlesex Archzol. 
Soc.) referred to the discovery of a bastion con- 
taining several sculptured stones in St. Mary Axe 
(The Builder, November 22, 1884, and compare 
VCH). 

In 1852 an excavation was made against the 


outside of the City Wall on Tower Hill, and a 


68 LONDINIUM 


number of large wrought and carved stones were 
found (The Builder, September 4, 1852) (Fig. 
33). In an account given in the Fournal of the 
British Archeological Association the workmen are 
said to have discovered a “complete quarry of 


: si — 7 ZS 
















LG 


1 Gal 


ABALPINICLASS 


SABA = 


Fic. 33. 


stones cut in various forms and evidently belonging 
to some important building ... 125 making 4o 
cart loads.” Fairholt made an etching of the place 
while the work was in progress, which shows that the 





WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 69 


“quarry ” was heaped against the external face of 


the wall like the bases of the other bastions, and 
that, in fact, it was a ruined bastion (Fig. 34 from 
Roach Smith’s Roman London, slightly modified). 
Another account is given in the Antiquarian Etch- 
ing Club by A. H. Burkitt, with a plate: ‘“ ‘These 
interesting remains were discovered during the 
excavations in June 1852, which laid bare the wall 
to its base. The various portions of stone, which 





at 


“SS 


SSS ae on oe one 


Fic. 34. 


amounted to about forty cart loads, bear evidence 
of having belonged to an important building. The 
inscription and band of laurel leaves, which probably 
formed an ornament above it, indicate a monument 
of considerable magnitude to the memory of a 
commander of the Roman Navy. ‘There were 
found at the same time fragments of frescoes with 
inscriptions.” (In Fig. 33 the fragment with laurel 
leaves is represented upside down.) 

The two stones specially mentioned are now 
in the British Museum. It appears from the 
accounts and illustrations that this bastion was 


70 LONDINIUM 


built against the wall without being bonded to it 
in the lower part, that its foundation was formed of 
large carved and moulded stones, and was at a lower 
level than that of the wall. (The part below the 
plinth in Fig. 34 on the left is rough foundation.) 
We thus have clear record that several of the 
bastions on the east and north sides of the City 
were constructed in a similar way. ‘Those farther 
west near the Post Office were probably rebuilt 
in medieval times. ‘These 
were hollow at the base, 
not solid like the others. 












5 The towers of the city 
7 wall of Carcassone, de- 
Yi scribed by Viollet le Duc 


SS 
SEXSy93n 
NSA A AN 


x SSS SY 
SSS 
“AN 


(Dict., vol. i.), were so 
similar in construction 
that it is plain our bastions 
were constructed accord- 
ing to general custom. In 
the illustration we see big 
stones at the base of 
Fie. 35. the bastion only; large 
window-like openings 
closed with woodwork above ; and an upper storey 
rising higher than the wall top. Fig. 35 is a suggested 
restoration of one of the London bastions, showing 
the foundation gap A, and an upper storey over- 
lapping the City Wall. 

It is probable that most, or all, of the bastions 
from Tower Hill to Cripplegate were built in the 
same way as those just described, and there is 
evidence to suggest that the western bastions were 
also similar. In 1806 fragments of Roman monu- 
ments were found near Ludgate ; “ these may have 





WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE yp 


come from a later Roman gate or from the adjoining 
bastion” (V.C.H.). Allen says: “‘ At the back of 
the London Coffee-house, Ludgate Hill, a circular 
tower and staircase was discovered ; and about 3 ft. 
below the pavement some remains of Roman art 
were found.” An etching of the stones published 
by T. Fisher in 1807 describes them as “ dug out 
of the foundations of the wall of the City, a few 
yards north of Ludgate.” Archer, speaking of an 
inscribed pedestal, says it was found “in extending 
the premises at the back of the London Coffee- 
house. It appeared in a bastion of the City Wall, 
and was built in with the masonry near some remains 
of a circular staircase” (Illust. Family Four., c. 1850). 
Now, Horwood’s plan of 1799 shows the back of 
the Coffee-house adjoining the line of the old wall 
-and extending a long way north—apparently much 
more than sufficient to overlap the bastion numbered 
55 on Mr. Reader’s plan. ‘The Post Office excava- 
tions recently made down Ludgate Hill show that 
the natural ground is here only about 10 ft. below 
the modern level. 

The Camomile Street and All Hallows bastions 
were about 20 ft. wide and projected about 16 ft. 
In medizval days the bastions rose above the para- 
pet walk on the main wall, and each formed a round- 
ended chamber having loopholes. This is well 
shown on the Survey of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, 
1592, which I published about 1900 in Middlesex 
Notes and Queries. (Several round-fronted bastions 
are planned as well as Aldgate itself.) The medizval 
arrangement, I have no doubt, followed the Roman 
scheme. ‘The openings in the original bastions 
would, we may suppose, have been wider than 
medizyal loops, and have had semicircular arches 


72 LONDINIUM 


of brick overthem. (See Viollet le Duc’s Dictionary, 
vol. i. p. 333.) The walls and bastions which still 
exist at Le Mans and Senlis more closely resemble 
those of Londinium than any others I have seen. 
At Le Mans a long portion fronting, but some way 
back from the river Sarthe, has three bastions 60 
yds. to 70 yds. apart, round on the front about 
20 ft. wide, and 15 in. or 16 in. projection. The 
curtain is about 30 ft. high, and the bastions rise 


Kn 





higher—say, to 45 ft.; they rise sloping for some 
way from the ground ‘(Fig. 36). The bastions at 
Senlis are very similar, but some of these have two 
storeys of large openings, three in each. 

For a long time it was argued that the bastions 
of the Wall of London were medieval; then very 
considerable difference of construction from the 
City Wall has been alleged. It has been said that 
their masonry was unlike the other, and that there 
were no tile bands. We only know with any 


| —— 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 73 


certainty the lower parts of the bastions now re- 
cognised as Roman, and there is no reason for assert- 
ing that there were no tile bands in the upper 
parts. The bastion illustrated by Roach Smith 
from a sketch by Gough had bands of brick, but 
in the illustration this bastion appears as square, 
and this is unlikely (see Archeol. Ixiii.). It is 
possible, however, that the form is a misreading of 
a rough sketch. This, I think, is more likely than 
the suggestion in V.C’.H. that it was medieval. An 
illustration of a round-fronted bastion near Falcon 
Square given by Thornbury (Old and New London), 
shows two bands of tile. ‘This seems to be bastion 
40 of V.C.H., which was about 4o ft. high; “in 
the upper part was a row of tile-brick, probably due 
to later patching.” ‘There are also some other 
references to tiles in bastions, and on the whole I 
conclude that they probably had tile bands more 
or less like the wall. Both the bastion just men- 
tioned and that of Gough’s sketch had openings 
below the upper storey, showing that in these 
bastions there were chambers below the level of 
the parapet. So there must have been at Le Mans 
(Fig. 36) and Senlis. Compare also V. le Duc’s 
Dictionary, vol. 1. p. 333. 

In an article on the City Walls in the Fournal of 
the London Society (November 1922), Dr. Norman 
says: ‘‘ Last summer the remains of another bastion 
were laid bare not far from the west end of the 
Church of St. Anne and St. Agnes.” This was 
“the inner angle bastion ” near Aldersgate. 

It is not exactly known when the City was pro- 
tected by walls. Stow says: “‘ It seemeth not to 
have been walled in the year of our Lord 296, 
because in that year the Franks easily entered 


way LONDINIUM 


London.” He accepted the legend that “ Helen, 
the mother of Constantine, first enwalled this 
City.” Camden held the same view, and has a 
note: ‘Coins of Helena often found under the 
walls.”’ 

It is now agreed that the walls were built around 
a late and extended city, for rubbish pits and burials 
have been found within the walls. A belt of the 
former occupied the site of St. Paul’s and the Post 
Office. It was Roach Smith’s impression that the 
walls were probably built ‘‘ after the recovery of 
the province by Constantine, or even later, when 
Theodosius restored the towns” (Archeol. ‘Four., 
1844). 

Mr. Lambert, from planning the find-spots of 
Roman coins, comes to the conclusion that the 
wall was not in its later position until the fourth 
century. The type of walling is especially char- 
acteristic of the fourth century. MHaverfield has 
pointed out some earlier cases of the use of bonding 
tiles, but these seem to be exceptional. (See also 
what is said of Colchester in 7.R.S., 1919.) Darem- 
berg and Saglio give 309 as the date of the earliest 
wall of our kind in Rome. (They illustrate an 
example from Timgad, in North Africa, which 
closely resembles the wall of London.) I suggest 
that a point of evidence may be found in the Con- 
stantinian coin, which has a city gate or fortifica- 
tion for device, and the inscription PROVIDENTIAE 
CAESs, With the mint mark of London (Fig. 37). 
This device was not invented for London, but I 
cannot think that at such a time it could have been 
adopted if Londinium still remained an open 
city—it would have invited too obvious irony after 


what had happened in 296. ‘This coin was issued 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 75 


between 320 and 324, and I suggest that it may be 
accepted as a record of the walling of the City, or, 
perhaps more probably, the beginning of the works. 
The coins of Helen mentioned by Camden were 
issued about this time. In the later half of the 
fourth century London acquired the title of Augusta, 
and this change of style probably followed on the 
change of status of its having then been completely 
walled. (I find that Mr. Reg. Smith has already 
made this same suggestion in V.C.H.) Sir Arthur 
Evans has recently called attention to a silver 
coin of Valentinian the 
Elder as having in an ab- 
breviated form the mone- 
tary stamp of Londinensis 
Augusta. “A group of 
coins shows that the Mint 
at London, which had 
been closed since the time 
of Constantine, was re- 
stored by Valentinian in 
A.D. 368” (Proceedings, 
Se erots. p. 105).. I 
suggest that this is a prob- 
able date for the completion of the river wall. 
Several of the cities of Gaul were protected by 
walls at a still later time. 

Many of the carved fragments found in the 
bastions can be little earlier than the year A.D. 300. 
The important monuments of which remnants 
have been found must have been destroyed when 
the long, wide strip required for the original wall 
and its ditch was cleared, for the bastions themselves 
did not go beyond this ground. It seems possible 
that the big stones were reserved for founding 





76 LONDINIUM 


bastions; this is more likely than that distant monu- 
ments were destroyed to provide foundation stones. 
“To put an end to incessant pillage the Gallo- 
Roman towns sacrificed their faubourgs, and, re- 
trenching their extent, surrounded themselves with 
strong walls, which were very often supported on 
sculptured blocks taken from destroyed edifices. 
Le Mans, like the towns of Senlis, Tours, Autun, 
Bourges, Fréjus, etc., girded itself with ramparts 
flanked with round-fronted towers, of which 
important remains still exist, especially along the 
river Sarthe. The enceinte of Le Mans enclosed 
an area about 500 by 200 metres ” (A. Ledru, 1900). 
Gates——The excava- 
tions of 1903 at the Old 
Bailey revealed some 
SS remnants of the Roman 
gate on the site of New- 
gate. ‘The most signifi- 
Fic. 38. cant of these was a 

portion of plinth on the 

City side, with a return at the south end. This, as 
shown in Archeologia, lix., by Dr. P. Norman, when 
linked up with earlier discoveries made in 1875, 
allowed of the recovery of the plan of the gate (Fig. 
38). The plinth had been removed from its place 
before I saw it, but the stones were certainly shaped 
in Roman days; they had a chamfer 8 in. wide, 
with a square face of similar width below, and 
they had been strongly cramped together; one had 
a “return end,” and clearly came from a corner 
(A and B). A portion of the western plinth was 
discovered in 1909 (Archeol. Ixiii.). ‘The gate, 
with its towers on either side, had a frontage of 
about 96 ft.—probably 100 Roman feet, as a Roman 





WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 77 


foot was about 11°60 in. The space between the 
towers appears to have been about 35 ft., which is 
not more than sufficient for two large archways. 
The great gate at Colchester, which was about 
107 ft. wide, had two carriage-ways 17 ft. wide, and 
two small side openings 6 ft. wide as well (see 7.R.S., 
1919). Enough of the walling was found in 1875 
to show that the London gate was of stone bonded 
with tiles; it was erected on a thick platform of 
“‘ clay and ragstone,”’ which raised the plinth about 
5 ft. above the plinth of the adjoining City Wall. 
Fig. 39 is a restoration of the front. 

Several years ago a mass of masonry with a face 

to the south was found 
under Bishopsgate Street | 
a little within the line | 07 simi 
of the wall; underlying 
it was ‘‘ puddling of flint 
and clay” over a wide 
area. It was suggested ea 32) 
at the time (Archeol. |x. 
p. 58) that this masonry and foundation might have 
belonged to Roman Bishopsgate, and the finding of 
what seems to have been a similar platform at 
Newgate strengthens the hypothesis. It had long 
ago been pointed out by T. Wright that the gate 
at Lymne was raised on a platform of big stones. 
At Lymne and Pevensey entrance gates had round- 
fronted towers, and the great gate at Colchester 
had quadrants. 

Medieval Aldgate had two _ round-fronted 
towers; these are shown in the Survey of Holy 
Trinity Priory mentioned above, and they are so 
similar to the bastions of the wall that I was led to 
suggest that the double gateway and towers were 


78 LONDINIUM 


probably substantially Roman work (Fig. 40). Some 
confirmation of this is given in V.C.H., but com- 
pare Archeologia, xliii. Fitzstephen, writing at the 
end of the twelfth century, says that London 
had “‘ double gates,’ and this was doubtless so from 
Roman days. 

The Roman ditch outside Aldersgate, with a 
foundation for a bridge pointing towards the gate, 
was found about thirty years ago, and this is evi- 
dence for a Roman gate on this site (Archeol. lii.). 
Ludgate is guaranteed as Roman by the antiquity 
of the Strand and Fleet Street. Stow says that in 
1595 he observed on the north side of Fleet Street 


ALA 


Fic. 40. 


from Chancery Lane to St. Dunstan’s Church, 4 ft. 
below the surface, “‘a pavement of hard stone, 
more sufficient than the first, under which they 
found in the made ground piles of timber almost 
close together, the same being black as pitch and 
rotten, which proved that the ground there, as 
sundry other places of the City, had been a marsh.” 
Close piling was such a common Roman procedure 
that it may not be doubted that what Stow observed 
was the Roman road to Ludgate. 

Medizval Aldgate can be restored very fully by 
comparing the plan mentioned above with the view 
of the City given by Braun and Hogenberg (c. 1550). 
The gate is so accurately represented that two stair 
turrets appear over the positions where stairs are 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 79 


shown in the plan. If this gate is so accurately 
drawn, then the other indications may be accepted. 
In the Pepys collection, Cambridge, is an engraved 
view of a gate dated 1688; in the list of contents 
this is described as Cripplegate, but I believe it is 
rather Bishopsgate. It was an unaltered medieval 
structure, with corbelled battlements and three 
statues in niches, one on each of the towers and 
one in the centre. Newgate is also represented in 
a woodcut view of about the same time, and in an 
engraving of considerable accuracy, from a book 
entitled Herba Parietis; here even Whittington’s 
coat-of-arms plainly appears. For a possible view 
of the Bridge gate, c. 1416, see an article by Mr. 
Weale in the Burlington Magazine, 1904. 

A Roman road on piles has recently been found 
in Southwark (Archeol. lxiii.). Adding the Bridge 
gate, we now have evidence for the existence in 
Roman days of the six chief gates of Londinium. 
It has been suggested that there may have been an 
earth bank inside the walls, as at Silchester, but the 
different relation of the fronts of the gates to the 
walls in London are contrary arguments. 

Ditches—When the site of Newgate was ex- 
cavated I saw the slope of the ditch clearly defined 
by the blacker earth lying above the clean yellow 
gravel. The latest and clearest account of the 
ditches is in Archeologia, |xii. ‘There was first a 
narrow V-shaped ditch dug when the wall was first 
built. A second wider ditch was excavated out- 
side the other, which was at least partly filled when 
the bastions were built. ‘There were similar double 
ditches at Silchester, and it has been pointed out 
that there the earlier V-shaped ditch probably 
supplied the gravel for building the wall; possibly 


80 LONDINIUM 


this was the case at London too. The wide ditch 
was probably further expanded in front of the gates ; 
it was about 75 ft. wide at the top of the bank out- 
side Aldersgate. 

The Original Port of London and the Bridge.— 
The space within the completed walls has been 
computed to have been about 330 acres by Dr. 
Philip Norman. Dr. Haverfield says: “At London, 
Silchester, Trier, Cologne, the walls seem to have 
enclosed the town at near its largest ” (Romaniza- 
tion). Roach Smith first remarked that from the 
position of burials within the area of the City we 
might infer the position of an earlier Londinium. 
Loftus Brock also, following Woodward, in pointing 
out that the northern cemetery had come within 
the space enclosed by the City Wall at Bishopsgate, 
used the same argument. Mr. Reginald Smith 
plotted all the known burials on a plan. Mr. 
Lambert has also laid down the find spots of coins 
of different dates. In his recent paper in Archeo- 
logy he suggests that a stratum of charred material 
between London Bridge and the Walbrook re- 
presents the early Londinium destroyed by 
Boadicea. A large number of rubbish pits have 
been found within the walls. Putting these facts 
together it is evident that the original site of 
Londinium must have been by the inlet of the Wal- 
brook, and it is probable that this little tidal creek 
was the first port of London—the seaport of Celtic 
Verulam, to which an old road led by Aldersgate 
and Islington. It is likely that before the Roman 
walls were built some defensive bank would have 
been thrown up between the Fleet and the Wal- 
brook; compare the earth banks at Colchester. 
Can Barbican represent such a defence ? 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 81 


London Bridge is mentioned in the tenth cen- 
tury. Stow tells us that it was first of timber. 
Then in 1067 a charter speaks of ‘‘ Botolph’s Gate, 
with a wharf which was at the head of London 
Bridge.” He goes on: ‘‘ About the year 1176 the 
stone bridge was begun near unto the bridge of 
timber, but towards the west, for Botolph’s wharf 
was, in the Conqueror’s time, at the head of London 
Bridge.” 

Nothing was known of a Roman bridge until 
last century. Then when the old stone bridge 
was destroyed evidence was found which con- 
vinced observers of the time that a Roman bridge 
had preceded it on the same line. Recently some 
writers, while accepting the Roman bridge as proved, 
have preferred to put it back to Stow’s line.. Haver- 
field says: ‘‘ No traces of a Roman bridge have yet 
been found (Archeologia, |x.) : the oldest medizval 
bridge (eleventh century) is said by Stow to have 
been. near Botolph’s wharf (see plan).”” ‘This plan 
shows the bridge “‘ temp. William the Conqueror ”’ 
far to the east of Fish Street Hill (see also V.C.H.). 
Exactly what Haverfield meant by saying that no 
traces of the bridge had been found is hard to say; 
it seems to have been as loose a statement as the 
one which seems to imply that the earliest medizval 
bridge was of the eleventh century. 

Roach Smith, a cautious observer, was entirely 
convinced by the evidence that the medieval 
bridge followed the course of the Roman bridge. 
“Throughout the line of the old bridge many 
thousands of Roman coins, with abundance of 
Roman pottery, were discovered, and beneath 
some of the central piles brass medallions of Aurelius, 
Faustina and Commodus. The enormous quantity 

6 


82 LONDINIUM 


of Roman coins may be accounted for by the 
practice of the Romans . . . they may have been 
deposited upon the building or repairs of the 
bridge, as well as upon the accession of a new 
emperor... . The beautiful works of art which 
were discovered alongside the foundations, the 
colossal bronze head of Hadrian, the bronze images 
of Apollo, Mercury, Atys ... and other relics 
were possibly thrown into the river by early 
Christians” (Archeol. Four., vol. i.). This seems 
substantial evidence. The charter cited by Stow 
only speaks of a wharf as being at the head of 
London Bridge ; it does not tell us that the bridge 
ran into the middle of the wharf. The Roman 
bridge was linked up with an approach from the 
south over a raised causeway; the bridge-ends 
would have required much consolidation, and the 
foundations in the great tidal river must have been 
extremely difficult to construct. We should need 
very clear demonstration before we could believe 
that the early Saxons did more than patch up the 
work of skilled Roman engineers. Altering of the 
bridge to the Gracechurch Street line on the City 
side in 1176 would have meant replanning on a big 
scale. ‘The ancient line of approach on the south 
side is guaranteed by the area of Roman finds (see 
V.C.H. plan). Gracechurch Street is known to 
have existed before the Conquest, and the positions 
of the ancient churches of St. Magnus’s and St. 
Olaf’s at each end of the bridge are significant : 
the bridge, I believe, was in the parishes of these 
two churches. 

Much more might be said, but I cannot think 
it is necessary. I conclude that the Roman bridge 
followed the line between the “ Borough” and 


WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 83 


Gracechurch Street, and that the phrase in the 
charter was nothing more than a general indication 
of the position of the wharf. 

After the building of the Roman bridge, Billings- 
gate may have succeeded the Walbrook creek as the 
chief port of London. 

One of the sights of Londinium which may best 
be imagined is the approach over the bridge. Or 
we may think of the ring of turreted walls of the 
City by the river as seen from the northern heights. 
Or, again, we may think of the sights from the 
walk on the City Walls; the Kent hills beyond the 
Thames estuary, with ships coming up to make fast 
at Dowgate; then, turning to look inward over 
the City, we may imagine the narrow streets and 
plastered, red-tiled, houses. It must have been 
grim and grey when the roofs were covered with 
snow, and we may wonder what dwellers from the 
south thought of our fogs. Yet Londinium was a 
romantic city, a little Rome in the west, and we 
want some good story about it which shall bring 
it out of archeology into the minds of the citizens 
and the hearts of the children. 





From a CarvING ON AN ALTAR AT RISINGHAM, 


CHAP Th hai 
CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 


‘*O more than mortal man that did this town begin, 
Whose knowledge found the plot so fit to set it in. 
Built on a rising bank within a vale to stand, 
And for thy healthful soil chose gravel mixed with sand.” 
Drayton’s Polyolbion. 


CEMETERIES 


HE site of London by a noble tidal river, 
or rather at the head of a long estuary, 
on clean gravel ground intersected with 

streams, was well chosen. The ground was open 
heath with scrubby vegetation, except for woods 
here and there where the soil was suitable. Sir 
Thomas More planned his “‘ Utopia” on a site 
similar to that of London. The buildings of 
London have spoilt an excellent golf course! ‘The 
walled city set down in the fair land must have been 
beautiful indeed, as seen from the Hampstead or 
Surrey hills. On approaching the turreted walls 
by the straight and narrow roads, the traveller 
would have had to pass through a wide belt of 
cemeteries. Around Londinium in its later state, 
the gardens of the dead would have come right up 
to the city ditch, just as at Constantinople the 
beautiful ‘Turkish cemeteries, with their noble 
cypresses, lie close beside the walls of the city. 

‘* Around Rome was a great belt of cemeteries ; 
the sides of the main roads issuing from the gates 

4 


CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 85 


were especially favoured sites; the chief region of 
all was that crossed by the Via Appia and Via 
Latina ” (Lanciani). 

‘An immense field of the dead had extended all 
along the north-eastern quarter of ancient London, 
from Wapping Marsh to the fen beyond Moorfields ” 
(C. Knight). 

Goodman’s Fields, Moorfields, Spitalfields, were 
all cemeteries, and it is curious that they all have 
in common the name of fields. In the valley of the 
Fleet River by Ludgate and Blackfriars on the west 
were also cemeteries; and others lay beyond 
Southwark (Battersea Fields and St. George’s 
Fields ?). The city of the dead must have been 
impressive on account of its extent and the number 
of its population, and doubtless it was beautiful. 
The harsh horror of modern cemeteries is a new thing 
on the earth. In antiquity, cemeteries had beauty, 
poetry, history. 

The monuments of Londinium would have been 
of many kinds, small and big—columns, sculptures, 
mausolea, altar-tombs, tomb-houses, and_ steles 
or slabs. ‘These tombs were not cold and pale, but 
profusely carved, and, doubtless, in most cases, 
coloured. The monuments in the museum at 
Tréves show many traces of colour—red, green and 
yellow, if I remember aright. Dr. Ashby recently 
described a huge Roman necropolis at Syracuse 
in words which might apply to Londinium. “ Frag- 
ments of memorials were found, varying from simple 
steles and columns to the chapel with rich archi- 
tectural forms, the decorative portions being in soft 
limestone with considerable traces of polychromy.”’ 
Painting over coarse soft stone was a general tradi- 


tion, and bright colour liberally applied would greatly 


86 LONDINIUM 


change the aspect of rather crude carvings. At 
Bath an inscription mentions the repair and re- 
painting of a building. This might be internal 
painting, but it was an external inscription and 
probably included outside work. The Corinthian 
temple at Bath was decorated with colour on the 
exterior. Mr. Irvine says of a piece of the cornice : 
‘* Considerable portions of the red paint with which 
it had been covered remained among the carving.” 

Finds of burials are still not infrequent in London ; 
as specimen cases I quote two recent newspaper 
clippings: “A workman excavating in Cannon 
Street Road, Stepney, has unearthed an urn con- 
taining bones at a depth of 2 ft. below the road 
level; Sir C. H. Read observed that it provided a 
link in the track of the Roman road eastward, as the 
custom was to deposit these urns at the sides of the 
roads” (December 19, 1919). ‘‘ The discovery of 
two Roman urns in Mansell Street, Goodman’s 
Fields, is of considerable importance. The urns 
were found about Io ft. below the garden of a house. 
Both contained inner cinerary urns with calcined 
remains. ‘The perfect one resembles an ordinary 
jar with a cover; the outer urn is perfectly round, 
and has handles on each side by the mouth. It is 
believed that the site was that of a Roman villa ; 
bricks and tiles having been discovered in other 
parts of the site” (1913). The urns are now in the 
London Museum. 

The actual monuments once on the east of the 
City are represented by the fragments found in 
the Tower Hill bastion ; those to the north, by the 
stones found in the Camomile Street and other 
bastions ; those on the west, by the soldier’s monu- 
ment found at Ludgate Hill by Wren, by later 


CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 87 


discoveries near Ludgate Hill, in 1806, and the 
fragment of the monument of Celsus found on the 
Blackfriars site. 

Steles—A memorial slab in the Guildhall Museum 
is particularly interesting, as it is obviously in the 
tradition of Hellenistic art. It is a true stele of the 
usual small scale, about 2 ft. wide and 24 ft. high ; 
it bears a relief sculpture of a soldier in a panel 
bordered by pilasters and 
finished with a pedimental 
top (Fig. 41). This broken 
flapewie) in the reserve 
collection and is not 
usually visible, nor is it 
ine the )-catalogue; the 
supposition is that it was 
found in one of the bas- 
tions with so many other 
remnants of tombs. It 
must, I think, be one of 
the earliest Roman monu- 
ments discovered in 
London. 

At the Guildhall is ae 
shown a sculptured slab 
thus described: ‘“‘ Monumental tablet, marble, 
bearing in relief the figure of a man armed with 
a trident and sword (?), and having a shield-like 
protection to the upper portion of his left arm; 
above is a fragmentary inscription; Greek; 
212X154 X3% in.: Tottenham Court Road.” It 
was illustrated in an early volume of Archeologia 
(xi. p. 48). On the original drawing at the Society | 
of Antiquaries is written: ‘‘’This white marble 
slab was found by Mr. Miller among the ruins of a 





88 LONDINIUM 


ANIAMAPTIA 
APITQ ANAPI 











“FE KAIPE 
Fic. 43. 


house at Islington. It 
is now fixed up on the 
front of a warehouse in 
High Timber Street, 
near Labour-in-Vain 
Hill.” (This was south 
of ‘Thames Street in 
the City.) The in- 
scription is given by 
Hiibner. With the 
writer in V.C.H., we 
may doubt whether 
this slab is not an 
importation like the 
Arundel Marbles; but 
other works in white 
marble will be de- 


' scribed in this section, 


and gladiators were 
well known in Lon- 
dinium (Fig. 42). 

In~ ‘the Britten 


Museum is a _ small 


stele with awell-carved 
relief of a man heavily 
draped in a dignified 
pose and classical taste, 
and also having aGreek 
inscription. ‘This stone 
slab is little more than 
1 ft. wide by about 
2% ft. high (Fig. 43). 


It was obtained in 


1911, but it was drawn 


by Archer about eighty 


CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 89 


years ago. It was found in White’s Conduit 
Fields, that is, near Lamb’s Conduit Street. 
This, too, has a Greek inscription of which I can 
only make out the last word and a few other 
letters : 
OC 

Siew sOY: 

E XAIPE 
The last word is Farewell. I have felt some doubt 
as to this really pretty little work being a London 
antiquity. My sketch is given from Archer’s draw- 
ing. Although he may have restored it to some 
degree, it is probable that it has suffered from 
decay since he drew it. Other Greek inscriptions 
have been found in Britain. 

There is another stele at the Guildhall which 
is so similar in several respects to the one just 
described that it might have been carved in the 
same shop. It is described in the catalogue as a 
*“*Monumental slab, limestone, on which is re- 
presented a figure of a man and child; the former 
is clothed in a toga, the folds of which he is holding 
in his left hand; 26x13$x2} in.” That two 
slabs so much alike should be discovered in one 
city, is a strong argument in favour of their having 
originated there. Notice, further, how the little 
pediment over the British Museum slab resembles 
that of the slab of the soldier first described. Again, 
the wide, plain margins are like those of the Gladiator 
slab. ‘The evidence seems to be in favour of our 
accepting all the four slabs described as truly London 
works. 

In the British Museum (the Roman corridor) 
is a tall inscribed slab of the headstone type, about 


90 LONDINIUM 


6% ft. high (Fig. 44). We may see clearly that it is 
a descendant of the steles by noting a few little 
points. It has the side pilasters and a pediment 
on which some lumps carry on the tradition of 
acroteria. An inscription occupies the field where 
the steles have sculptured reliefs, and a lower space 
is occupied by a festoon. 
From the inscription, NA 
ATIENI, it seems that it 
commemorated a man born 
in Athens. This slab is 
especially like a large stele 
at Cirencester which had 
two panels, the upper one 
having a relief and the 
lower an inscription. Pro- 
portions, pilasters, pedi- 
ment are all like our 
London slab. Haverfield 
assigned the Cirencester 
slab to the end of the 
first century, and the 
London one can only be 
a little later. The in- 
scription terminates with 
the early formula: H[1c] 
. S[itus] EST. 

arabs This (slab is9)mwe 
weathered and it stands at the Museum in a 
bad light, where it is difficult to make out the 
details. Running stems, with flowers on the 
pilasters, are quite pretty (Fig. 45), and, indeed, 
the whole thing has dignity. The lettering was 
free and doubtless more elegant than the painted 
forms now suggest. 





aan! 







exh ‘4 
OUR 
RFS Ss 





= SPSS 
5 ‘2 
-. 





ONE 
o ? 


CEMETERIES AND TOMBS gi 


Several larger memorial slabs have been found in 
London which had big reliefs of soldiers. One at 


the Guildhall and another at 
Oxford will be described under 
sculpture. There are two frag- 
ments in the British Museum 
which may stand for the type 
and be discussed here. One is a 
head a little less than life-size, 
part of a standing figure in a 
round-topped recess. Above is an 
inscription naming Celsus a specu- 
lator; it was found at. Blackfriars 


in 1876 (The Builder). ‘This much- 


injured fragment appears very 
rude, but the others of this class 
were competent works of sculp- 
ture. The second is only a head 
now in the upper gallery at the 
Museum; both were probably 





works of the first half of the second century. Four 


known examples of 





Fic. 46. 


remains to allow of the 


this type must repre- 
sent many—perhaps 
dozens which once 
existed. 

At the Guildhall is 
a fragment of sepul- 
chral sculpture, which 
may have been part 
of a larger monument 
rather than of a stele, 
but I will speak of it 
here. Just enough 
restoration of the 


92 LONDINIUM 


scheme. A winged Cupid at the end of a 
panel which doubtless bore an inscription, would 
have been one of a pair. The Cupid holds 
an ivy-leaf, symbol of the grave, and above is a 
festoon with a bird perched on it (Fig. 46). Two 
or three grave slabs at Chester with reliefs of 
sepulchral banquets have similar festoons and 
birds which must have had symbolic reference to 
an after-life. 

A much-battered fragment of relief sculpture 
at the Guildhall may, I think, be a remnant of 
a sepulchral banquet ; 
it shows the upper 
part of a man in a 
recess with the point 
of what looks like the 
arm of the usual sofa- 
like bench behind 
him. 

Chests and Coffins. 
} —In earlier Roman 

Fieoay Britain bodies were 

cremated and _ the 

ashes disposed in urns, lead boxes, and in other ways. 
There is in the British Museum a truly magnificent 
urn of hard porphyry-like stone which was found 
in Warwick Square. At the Guildhall is part of a 
sarcophagus-like chest about 2 ft. by 24 ft. (Fig. 47). 
Its discovery was recorded by Price thus: “A 
coped stone of a marble tomb has been discovered 
near to the west door of St. Helen’s Church, Bishops- 
gate; associated with it was a coin of Constantine 
Junior, A.D. 317-3407” (London and Middlesex 
Archeol. Soc. Trans. vol. v. 413). The material 
has shining particles, and seems to be white marble. 





CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 93 


In this respect it should be compared with the 
gladiator relief already described, and the fine 
Clapton sarcophagus mentioned below. ‘The 
association with the coin must have been accidental, 
for this chest cannot, I think, be later than the 
second century. It would have contained an urn 
holding burnt bones; compare a rude stone cist 
from Harpenden in the British Museum. 

An excellent account of London graves is given 
in V.C.H. Stow described the finds in Spitalfields 
in his day thus: ‘‘ Divers coffins of stone, and the 
bones of men without coffins, and great nails of 
iron were found a quarter of a yard long. I beheld 
the bones of a man lying, his head north, and round 
about some such nails, wherefore I considered them 
to be the nails of his coffin.” Many plain coffins 
of stone have been found in the City and suburbs. 
In an old MSS. collection which I have, is the note: 
** About Dec. 1717, was taken up out of ye ground 
near ye new church of Rotherhithe, a stone coffin 
of prodigious size in which was ye skeleton of a 
man 10 foot long” (!). A Minute of the Society 
of Antiquaries (July 28, 1725) reads: ‘‘ An ancient 
glass vase of bell-shape found in a stone cofhn, 14 ft. 
under the ground by the portico of St. Martin’s 
Church [in the Fields]; ’tis now in Sir Hans Sloan’s 
collection.” ‘The “‘ vase’? was doubtless one of the 
little L-shaped bottles. Price described a stone 
cofin found in Fleet Lane nearly 8 ft. long, con- 
taining a skeleton in lime. 

The wooden coffins must have been still more 
common. Conyers, about 1670, recorded the finding 
of one in an excavation at Fleet ditch. ‘‘ About 
ye middle of the new ditch as low as ye bottom of 
ye old wall there were found an oak coffin turned 


94 LONDINIUM 


black, of boards with bands, a man’s length from 
ye old ditch wall, upon the old wharfing, or, as 
I suppose, natural ground wharfed upon. In this 
coffin was a glass vial in ye fashion L [an expanded 
base with long neck], and brass like a hinge, these 
lay amongst the bones, the glass I have by me” 
(Conyer’s MS.). ‘This was evidently one of the 
chests described by Mr. Ward: ‘‘ Wooden coffins 
or chests were in common use, as the presence of 
iron nails, iron or bronze bindings, hinges, and other 
mountings prove.’’ An oak coffin was found in 
Moorfields in 1873, the objects from which are now 
in the British Museum. 

Two stone coffins are preserved in the Guildhall 
collection. ‘Two containing lead coffins were found 
at Pie Corner, St. Bartholomew’s, in 1877 (London 
and Middlesex Archeol. Soc. Trans., vol. v.). Lead 
coffins were usually ornamented, and will be further 
considered. It is probable that some of the coffins 
of wood and of stone were Christian burials. 

The coffins of stone described were roughly 
wrought, and they were buried in the ground. 
Others, however, have been found which are hand- 
some pieces of workmanship, and bear inscriptions. 

Three well-decorated stone sarcophagi found in 
London are at the Guildhall, the British Museum 
and Westminster Abbey. The sarcophagus at 
the Abbey is the earliest in style. It was found 
under the green at the angle between the north 
transept and the nave in 1869, and now rests by the 
entry to the Chapter House. On the cover is a large 
cross which seems to have been cut on the old stone in 
the twelfth century. Yet the evidence seems to have 
been against reuse in Christian times. It was the 
opinion, however, of the discoverers that it had been 





CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 95 


moved from its original site, but it was found close to 
the presumed Roman road to the river bank. The 
front has a panel with an inscription in excellent 
lettering, giving the name of Valerius, a super- 
ventor in the army, and beginning MEMoRIAE. 
This form is found in two or three other British 
inscriptions, and was frequently used on tombs at 
Lyons. ‘The Westminster inscription and the panel 
in which it is placed are of comparatively early 
style, and it is dificult to think that such work can 
be later than about a.p. 200. On the other hand, 
it is said that the new mode of burial at full length 
in a sarcophagus was not adopted in Britain until 
about a.p. 250. I do not suppose that our example 
is so late as this. ‘The front may be compared with 
a slab in Edinburgh Museum, c. a.p. 160 (F.R.S., 
il. p. 128). The Lyons inscriptions of a similar 
type are also of the age of the Antonines. Alto- 
gether, [ cannot think that the Westminster tomb 
is later than a.p. 200. It is possible that it may first 
have contained cinerated remains and not have been 
a sarcophagus proper. 

The sarcophagus at the British Museum was found 
in Haydon Square, Minories, the site of a part of 
a cemetery where in 1797 “‘ many curious fragments 
of Roman pottery as well as glass vessels were dis- 
covered, and two complete urns with bone ashes, 
etc., were taken up.” This stone sarcophagus 
contained a lead coffin, now also in the British 
Museum. At the Society of Antiquaries is an 
accurate drawing of both made at the time of the 
discovery. ‘The cover was securely clamped down 
with iron (Fig. 48). At the centre of the front is a 
simple medallion portrait head, the rest is filled 
with flutes (Fig. 49). The outer face of the cover, 


96 LONDINIUM 


which slants up to a ridge, is carved with acanthus 
leaves (Fig. 50), the inner slanting side is plain, and 
this shows that it stood in a building or against a 











5 v 
Ser Were 
AN 
i} 


| ata Se Hiss 
: d f on 


ANKS Yo Vo Yet 2AM 
J A eeG iy 


y Ny $s BAL < IV 
\ KR RAKE X ) dT 4 
OK SOS 


ry ! 
“, NNT WAIAIAA 744 
“« “YYVYWAAAK A el 
a — ae eee : 4 





Fic. 48. 


wall. At the two ends are carved baskets of fruits, 


and these must be symbolical (Fig. 48). ‘This tomb 
had no inscription; it belonged to a time when 





Fic. 49. 


inscriptions were few. Whether itself the tomb of 


a Christian or not, it is of a Christian type, and I 
should date it about a.p. 340. 


CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 97 


The sarcophagus now at the Guildhall was 
found at Clapton in 1867; it resembles that last 
described, and must be very nearly of the same 
date. It lay east and west, ‘“ the Christian orienta- 








BiG, $0. 


tion,’ as Mr. Reginald Smith notes. The cover 
was attached to the lower part by strong iron straps 
(cf. Fig. 48). It is described as white marble or 
oolitic limestone, and there are many sparkling 


Se Cee CS 
hae nee Rn PR 
=a ~AN NT 

Sar ea as 


oe 


ae 


i 
a 
es 





Fic. 51. 


particles in the material. The front, which is 
80 in. long, has a portrait bust at the centre in a 
circle, above a panel in which is the inscription, 
and the rest is filed with vertical flutings (Fig. 51). 


7 


98 LONDINIUM 


The cover is lost, the back and ends are plain, 
and it probably stood in a building. The portrait 
relief is curiously early Christian in character. The 
fluting is exceptionally refined and effective. This 
is a truly beautiful work, and doubtless if it were in 
an Italian museum it would be much better known 
to Englishmen than it is. A full and excellent 
account of it is given by Price (London and Middlesex 
Archeol. Soc. Proceed., vol. iii.), in which he com- 
pared it with some tombs in the Lateran Museum, 
showing that it is in the style of early Christian 
monuments ¢. 340-50. (Ihe same paper contains 
descriptions of several plain stone coffins.) 

The inscription on the Clapton tomb was very 
short, hardly more than names, and it does not 
seem to have contained any expression of faith. 
The Haydon Square tomb had no inscription. 
This reticence is characteristic. ‘“‘ The historical 
inscriptions of this age can be counted on the fingers 
of one hand. . . . It is curious to find a noteworthy 
lack of ordinary sepulchral inscriptions of private 
persons in the fourth century; there are very few 
Christian tombs, but it is much more surprising 
to find a lack of those of the ordinary heathen type. 
Conceivably fourth-century tombs were handiest 
for the Saxon invader” (Sir C. Oman, England 
before the Norman Conquest). Christian inscriptions 
are very few in France also; there are not, I believe, 
half a dozen of the fourth century existing. 

This tomb and the other are good examples of 
the skilful way in which forms were obtained in a 
block of stone without cutting to waste; observe 
how the mouldings in Figs. 49 and 50 lie just on 
the surfaces. ‘This is a lesson for our own days. 

I have felt that this able work in fine material could 


CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 99 


hardly have had its origin in Britain, but further 
consideration suggests that the balance of evidence 
is in our favour. We have seen that other works 
are in white marble; there are in the British 
Museum two or three fragments of white marble 
slabs, while in the London Museum there is a 
complete one. Several fragments of dado linings 
are also known. In the heyday of the mosaic 
pavements there must have been some “ firm” of 
marble importers in London. ‘The general re- 
semblance of the Clapton sarcophagus to that 
found at Haydon Square is strongly in favour of 
their common origin. The cover was attached 
to the receptacle in a similar way with iron straps 
in both; in each case the flutes are separated by a 
sunk line. The man’s bust is very similar to the 
upper parts of the figures on the third and fourth 
steles above described. Altogether, I could suppose 
that both sarcophagi came from one shop, and that 
they were both the resting-places of Christians. 

A number of tablets which have been found 
must have been fixed in buildings or against walls. 
At the British Museum is a small fragment with a 
part of an animal incised, probably one of a pair 
facing a central object. (Compare the griffins 
on the enamelled plate found in London, in the 
British Museum.) Some of these tablets are of 
Purbeck and other native marbles, and this shows 
that we had competent marble masons settled here 
—probably the same as the mosaic workers. 

A small tablet, found in Goodman’s Fields, 
about 12 in. by 15 in., now at the Society of Anti- 
quaries, was described by Roach Smith as of native 
green marble; and a fragment in the British 
Museum, found in Philpot Lane, is of green marble. 


I0o LONDINIUM 


The former (Fig. 52), judging by the wording of the 
inscription and style of the lettering, may be dated 
about A.D. 100. 

On the whole, these Roman tombs had dignity 
and beauty, and a study of picked examples through- 
out Britain would be worth making. ‘The lettering 

he: : is admirable, and the in- 
f= pd + “mM ~> scriptions often have a quite 

FL‘AGRIGLA-MIL’ { human sound which is 

LEGVI-VICT-V-AN''] touching. The portrait 

XLITDXALBIA # reliefs are competent 

FAY. STINA~@NIVG@ |} common work. We should 

, INENPARABILI now have to go to an R.A. 
oe eae for such things, and come 
Fig. 62. away again without getting 
them. Some of the sym- 
bolic decoration speaks a universal language; the 
flowering scroll border and festoon of the slab, 
and the baskets of fruits on the sarcophagus, both 
in the British Museum, are more than ornaments. 
A stele at Colchester having a relief of a seated 
woman putting away her spinning into her work- 
box is really poetical. The sculpture is crude, but 
the idea is as fresh and beautiful as any tomb in 
the world can show. 





os NS Sd Be Od 


SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 


** The Cemetery had for years been overcrowded with burned and 
unburned burials; rains had caused the mounds to settle and the ground 
had resumed its even surface. . . . I beg you to see that the earth is 
raised to a mound again, and to have a smooth slab placed upon it.”’— 
SIDONIUS, A.D. 4.67. 


JOVE AND GIANT COLUMNS 


FEW of the more important sepulchral 

monuments have been reserved for special 

consideration. First among these I wish to 
discuss the fragments of what I suppose to have been 
examples of Jove and Giant columns, a class of monu- 
ment frequently found on the Continent. These 
columns, it has been thought, were not naturalised 
in Britain. In Archeéologia, lxix., Professor Haver- 
field, calling attention to an inscription at Ciren- 
cester, which seems to have formed part of a small 
column of the kind, said that except for this in- 
scription no other evidence had been found in 
Britain for the existence of such columns. Again, 
in another place, after speaking of figures of the 
Mother Goddesses, he added, ‘‘ We may ascribe to 
another immigrant the Colonne au géant found at 
Cirencester ” (Romanization). A large number of 
these monuments has been found in north-east Gaul. 
The main element was a decorated column the 
capital of which supported a sculptured group of 


102 


102 LONDINIUM 


‘‘Juppiter and a fallen barbarian giant.” Such a 
column usually stood on a pedestal having an 
inscription to the god; around the pedestal were 
relief sculptures of several figures, and there were 
four busts on the capital. Professor Haverfield, 
whose description I have been condensing, agreed 
with a suggestion made by Mrs. Strong that a fine 
Corinthian capital at Cirencester, which has four 
busts set among the acanthus leafage, may have 
belonged to the Jove and Giant pillar. This, 
however, is negatived by the scale of the capital 
as compared with the inscribed 
stone, which is only about 14 ft. 
square. Further, as he himself 
allowed, a second capital similar 
to the other exists, except for 
its upper part. Both the com- 
plete capital and the fragment 
were found on the site of the 
Basilica, and we may hardly 
doubt that both belonged to 
that building. 

Jove and Giant pillars, as I have called them, 
have been exhaustively treated in a German work 
(Hertlein, 1910). Espérandieu, in his volumes on 
Roman sculptures in Gaul, very fully illustrates 
two of these monuments, one at Cussy-la-Colonne, 
near Autun (2032), and another at Merten (4425), 
also a large number of fragments. He describes the 
Cussy column as having been about 44 ft. high 
(including the scupltured group) and 2 ft. in 
diameter ; the bottom of the pillar was carved in a 
trellis pattern (Fig. 53). The column at Merten 
was about 48 ft. high with a diameter of 2} ft. 
Under the number 4130, Espérandieu says of a 





SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 103 


square sculptured stone: “ It is generally agreed 
that these ‘four-god stones’ are not altars but 
pedestals. ‘They supported a second stone, usually 
of octagonal form, with representations of the Gods 
of the Week upon it. From this rose a column 
and capital, and, crowning all, a god riding and 
crushing under the hoofs of his steed a giant who 
terminates in two snakes.” Such columns had a 
religious significance, and “ their frequency, above 
all on the banks of the Rhine, is surprising” (No. 
4425). A good résumé of what had been said of 
these monuments was given by Mrs. Strong in 
1911 (7.R.S.); the general conclusion was that 
the Jove of the pillar was a sun and thunder 
divinity, ‘‘A Romanised sun-god”; the columns 
embodied “‘ a whole allegory of times and seasons.” 
‘“‘Hertlein interprets the columns as Irmin-saulen, 
symbols of the universe ; columns such as, according 
to Teutonic mythology, supported the heavens, here 
typified by Juppiter as lord of the skies.” Some 
writers had preferred to see a Roman emperor 
riding over a barbarian. 

In the British Museum there is a carved frag- 
ment of a highly decorated column which, I have 
little doubt, belonged to a Jove and Giant column. 
This stone was found built into the lower part of 
the City Wall along the river bank. Roach Smith, 
in whose collection it was, described it first in 1844 
(Archeol. Four., vol. i.) as: ‘‘ A portion of a de- 
corated stone which appears to have formed part 
of an altar.” Later he visited the Jove and Giant 
column near Autun, and in describing it in Col- 
lectanea Antiqua (vol. vi.) he refers to our stone. 
Subsequently in the Catalogue of his collection he 
spoke of the stone as: ‘‘ Fragment in green sand- 


104 LONDINIUM 


stone, with a trellis pattern with leaves and fruit. 
It appears to have formed part of a sepulchral 
monument, and was taken from the foundations 
of a Roman wall in Thames Street.” In saying this 
he doubtless had the 
Cussy monument in 
his mind, for that was 
understood to be a 
sepulchral monument. 
Our fragment is from 
a circular shaft which 
must have been about 
2% ft.in diameter. The 
surface is carved over 
with a pattern like a 
trellis of laths, in the interspaces of which appear 
leaves and bunches of grapes (Fig. 54 is restored - 
from the fragment). 

There is another stone in the British Museum 
which also probably formed part of a Jove and 
Giant column (Fig. 55). ‘This was found at Great 
Chesterford, an important Roman site in Essex. 
It is described as a “* Basin with bas-reliefs of the 
Roman deities.” ‘These figures have long ago been 
identified as four of the 
seven gods of the days of pagar FO a 
the week (Thos. Wright). | Beet an, yee | 
The fragment was made ah 
into a basin in modern 
times ; it is really half of 
an octagon, and on the 
top surface appear the sinkings for two big cramps 
which linked this to an adjoining similar stone 
(Fig. 56). For what is known of it, see Roach 
Smith’s account in Collectanea Antiqua and the 








SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 105 


Fournal of the Archeological Association, vol. iii. 
In the latter it is said that it is irregular and not 
semi-octagonal; but the breaking down of the 
upper part into the recesses which contain the 
reliefs gives the appearance of irregularity—that is 
all. ‘The octagon was 33 ft. in diameter. One of 
the sides was blank. One-half of this blank side 
remains, and also half of 
the opposite side, which 
retains enough of the sculp- 
ture to show that the figure 
carried a spear over the 
right shoulder. The next 
figure, going clockwise, was 
Mercury; he had a mantle 
over his left shoulder and 
carried his wand; points 
remaining by his hair show 
that his cap was winged. 
The third figure was Jove, 
a mature figure with broad 
breast, bearded head, and 
long hair. The fourth 
figure, who carried a hand- 
mirror, was Venus. ‘These 
figures agree very closely with a set of the planets 
arranged in similar order on a mosaic floor found 
at Bramdean, and by this comparison it is evident 
that the one with a spear was Mars. ‘The eighth, 
or blank, side followed the figure of Venus, so that 
the series must have begun with Saturn, in the 
Roman way. We may now say that the eight 
sides contained figures of the Deities of the Days 
in proper order: Saturn, Sol, Luna, Mars, Mercury, 
Jupiter, Venus. 


TT I ae a | 





106 LONDINIUM 


Espérandieu illustrates two stones from a very 
similar monument found in France at D’Yzeures 
(iv. p. 136). These are the halves of an octagon 
about 3 ft. 7 in. across which was built up in courses. 
One of the stones comes from a lower course, the 
other from an upper. ‘The vertical joints ran from 
an angle to an angle so that they should not cut 
through the sculptures on the sides. These reliefs 
were “‘ possibly the Divinities of the Days of the 
Week.” We have also in England remnants of 
a similar sculptured octagon which was built up 
in courses. ‘These are in Northampton Museum, 
and are illustrated in V.C.H. One of two stones 
shows the tops of the heads of a series of figures, 
the other stone has their feet. They are described 
as ‘Two fragments of an octagonal monument 
having figures in shallow niches, possibly the 
Deities of the Days of the Week”’ (Haverfield, vol. i. 
p- 181). Both these stones were of little height, 
the upper one only contained the crowns of the 
heads of the figures and flat curves forming the tops 
of the niches (compare Fig. 56). 

We are now in a position to restore the Chester- 
ford octagon (Fig. 56). The heads of the figures on 
the stone in the British Museum are not complete, 
for a bed joint runs just over the eyes, and the 
crowns of the heads must have been on another 
stone, as at Northampton. ‘T'wo other courses, at 
least, beneath what is represented by the existing 
fragment, would have been required to complete 
the figures, and indeed their feet were possibly on 
a narrow base-course, as at Northampton. The 
Chesterford stone and the fragments at North- 
ampton must represent important Jove and Giant 
pillars. ‘The size of the former, it should be ob- 


SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 107 


served, seems most suitable for a column shaft of 
about 24 ft. in diameter, the size of the lattice 
column represented by the fragment in the British 
Museum (Fig. 54), which probably, as said above, 
was itself part of a Jove and Giant column. There 
is thus high probability that there were important 
Jove and Giant columns, having pedestals sculp- 
tured with the Deities of the Days, at London, 
Chesterford and Northampton. If this is so, such 
columns must have been frequently 
erected in Britain, and we may look 
for evidences for the existence of 
others. 

In vol. iti. of Collectanea Roach 
Smith illustrated a small highly deco- 
rated column found at Wroxeter, 13 in. 
in diameter. It was similar to the 
Cussy column in having a lattice 
pattern below and a scale pattern 
above. Here and there were little 
relief subjects—a Cupid and a youthful 
Bacchus with grapes. Thiswas probably 
part of another Jove and Giant column, 
or at least of a single sepulchral column; there 
would hardly have been more than one so decorated. 

Several pieces of small highly decorated columns 
have been found in London, which must, I think, 
have belonged to memorial pillars and not to 
edifices. One of these found in the Houndsditch 
bastion, only g in. in diameter, was decorated with a 
simple lattice pattern (Fig. 57). Another is in the 
London Museum, which, in the part preserved, 
has a scale pattern (Fig. 58). A third fragment, 
at the Guildhall, has again both lattice and scale 
patterns (Fig. 59). 





108 LONDINIUM 


Jove and Giant columns were doubtless 
sepulchral, but they were also religiously signifi- 
cant. They were intended to sug- 
gest ideas of the conquest of evil 
powers and of renewal. Dr. 
Haverfield was, I think, mistaken 
in the passage quoted above in 
speaking of the giant as a barbarian ; 
he was rather a power of darkness, 
and this is brought out by a piece 
of British evidence. Figures of 
! four such creatures, each terminat- 

Ries £8. ing in two serpents, fill the corners 

of a mosaic floor found at Horkstow; 

they support a large circle divided into two rings 
and a centre; in the outer ring 
are Nereids and swimming 
creatures, in the inner one little 
genii with baskets of flowers, etc. 
The rings are divided into four 
parts by radial bands, and the 
general suggestion must be of the 
seasons and the cosmic order.. The 
snake-legged creatures in the 
corners are the Aloada@, the giants 
who attempted to scale Olympus 
by putting Pelion on Ossa. They 
are here in their proper places in 
the chaos outside the circle of 
the ordered world, “‘ the wheel of 
nature.” “This pavement helps to 
explain the general idea which 
led to the erection of Jove and 
Giant pillars, and shows that these ideas were 
current in Britain. The column is the world- 








SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 109 


axis set round by planets and seasons; above, the 
power of light and order hurls back the giant of 
gloom and strife (see Daremberg and Saglio, 
Aloade). In the foreign examples of the sculp- 
tured groups which rested on the capitals of the 
columns Jove sometimes had a wheel as his weapon, 
and wheels have been found carved in Roman 
altars in Britain. ‘‘ The sides of two large altars 
to Jupiter at Walton House bear the thunderbolt 
for Jupiter and a wheel, which possibly equates 
the Jupiter of these altars with the Gaulish ‘ wheel- 
god’ ”’ (Ward). An altar at Housesteads invokes 
the sun-god. The Jove and Giant pillars are evi- 
dence of a time when the old mythological names 
had been refitted to express ideas of good and evil, 
cosmic forces, and supposed planetary influences. 
The mosaic floors, as we shall see, provide further 
evidence of what was “higher thought” in third- 
century Roman Britain. 

Mausolea.—When the bastion of the City Wall 
in Camomile Street was destroyed, many sculptured 
stones from small but very richly decorated edifices 
were found. Price recognised that some of them 
must have belonged to an important sepulchral 
monument comparable with the Igel monument 
near Tréves. I saw, in 1912, some stones at T'réves 
which had a scale pattern cut on a roof-like slope, 
and soon after my return I noticed a stone of the 
same sort in the Guildhall Museum. Without 
having Price’s words in my mind I came to the 
conclusion that in the cemeteries of Londinium 
there must have been mausoleum-like monuments 
of the kind which the Museum at Tréves had 
shown me were common in the neighbourhood 
of that city. Several of these mausolea are now 


IIo 


LONDINIUM 


illustrated in Espérandieu’s great work on the 


Roman sculptures of Gaul. 





Fic. 60. 





In 1913 I offered a 
tentative restoration 
of a London monu- 
ment of this type in 
the Architectural 
Review. 

In Fig. 60 I have 
roughly sketched 
two stones at the 


Guildhall which evidently came from a mausoleum 


of the Tréves type, also a 
course from a fluted angle 
pilaster, showing part of an 
inscription. Compare No. 
5153 in Espérandieu’s 
work, where we find a 
similar scale pattern, angle 
pilasters bonded in courses 
with masonry, and the 
lettering of an inscription 
coming close up to the 
pilaster. Another stone at 
the Guildhall has a capital 


of a small angle pilaster on 





Ay” Ae 








a similar course. 


This 
capital has heads set 
amongst the leaves 
almost exactly like 
the capitals of the 
Igel mausoleum at 
Tréves (see Fig. 61). 
Another stone at the 
Guildhall is part of a 


frieze in two bands, 


the upper one of festoons and the lower one of 


SOME LARGER MONUMENTS ua es 


trees, and dogs coursing hares (Fig. 62). Similar 
hunting subjects are found on foreign monuments ; 


the festoons and the scale of the 
work are also appropriate for a 
structure of the mausoleum kind, 
and these five stones may very 
well have belonged to the same 
monument (Fig. 63). On another 
stone at the Guildhall is part of 
an inscription in widely-spaced 
lines containing the letters... 
R Lxx, doubtless part of ANNOR 
Lxx, which actually occurs on 
the tall headstone in the British 
Museum. At least two mausolea 
are probably represented by the 
stones at the Guildhall. Like the 
Tgel monument, they were prob- 
ably the tombs of rich merchants. 
There must have been a large 
number of tombs of this type 





Fic. 63. 


in Britain. Bruce and Roach Smith illustrated 
and described foundations of three tombs by the 





Roman road near High Rochester, 
one circular and two square ; the 
first was possibly big enough to 
have been a tomb-house. At 
Bath, some years ago, I noticed 
a stone which could only have 
been part of a square monu- 


ment (Fig. 64). This had the 


Fic. 64. tops of the niches cut like 


shells. 


Another stone at the Guildhall, found like the 
others in the Camomile Street bastion, has a short 


IL2 LONDINIUM 


length of a decorated angle column recessed as a 
“‘nook-shaft”’ and about a foot in diameter (Fig. 65). 
This, I think, must have formed part of a similar 

| monument. (This stone is 
not, I think, given by Price, 
but it appears in an illustra- 
tion in 7.B.4.A.) 

The mausolea of Londin- 
ium must have been very 
similar to the monuments at 
Tréves, and it may not be 
doubted that they would 
have been coloured as some 
of those were coloured. (I 
have a note that sculpture, 
as well as the decorative 

Fic. 65. carving, was coloured.) The 

braided work of Early Saxon 

monuments would have been “ picked out” in 

colour in a similar way, and I believe that fragments 
which have been found prove this. 





ALTAR- TOMBS 


Another type of tomb, of which many examples 
exist in the Museum at Tréves, is an altar-like 
structure having a square body surmounted by a 
slab ending in two big bolster-like rolls covered with 
scale or leaf ornament (see Espérandieu). ‘Tombs 
of this type have been found in Pompeii. We 
have in the British Museum parts of a very fine 
monument of this class. One of two stones is a 
great roll, and another has an inscription in hand- 
some letters. ‘These were found together in the 
foundations of one of the bastions of the City Wall 


SOME LARGER MONUMENTS | 1123 


at Tower Hill, as described in The Builder, 
September 4, 1852. In the illustration which was 
reproduced before (Fig. 33), a pile of other stones 
is shown, one of which, a moulding with a return, 
may have been the base of the same monument. 
The inscribed stone in the British Museum shows 
that the body of the monument was made up of 
four stones arranged as in the plan (Fig. 66), and 


PAANIBVS 


leis" /ABALPINI CLASSICIAN] 


LAB) ’ 
Rate v 


Att sland 
Pt, 

ne [MAS 

<r! 4 v 
RCN Uf, tae 





Fic. 66. 


cramped together ; the size of this part was prob- 
ably 7 by 5 Roman feet. It was not a sarcophagus, 
as the form seems to suggest, but a chest in which 
an urn containing ashes was placed. ‘The examples 
at ‘Tréves show that it was lifted on a high base. 
The covering part of our monument was made up 
of three stones of which one of the two end-pieces 
is in the Museum. The two end-pieces had large 
volute-like rolls similar to those on altars—for 
example, the little altar of Diana at Goldsmiths’ 
Hall. On these altars the central part usually 
8 


114 LONDINIUM 


rises again between the rolls into a gable-like shape, 
and that this type was followed in our tomb is 
shown by several examples at Tréves, as well as by 
the existing end stone which was evidently one of 
three; the little relief decoration on the remaining 
edge is suitable to have followed from relief carving 
in the central stone (Figs. 66 and 67). This tomb 
was a work of high quality, but it is badly shown ; 
the two stones could be set up together so as to 





Fic. 67. 


show the size and importance of the monument. 
If this were done and the Haydon Square and 
Clapton sarcophagi were shown with it, we should 
obtain a better understanding of the monuments of 
Londinium. 

Other memorials had sculptured figures. The 
hexagonal base of one of these found at Ludgate 
in 1806 (see before p. 71), and now at the Guild- 
hall, bears an inscription in memory of Claudia 
Martina, aged nineteen years. A much-injured 


SOME LARGER MONUMENTS — 115 


female head found with it is accepted as having 
belonged to the same monument, and a dowel hole 
on the pedestal confirms the idea that it supported 
a figure which was probably a portrait statue. It 
may be observed that the capping of the pedestal 
is cut with rolls in the tradition of the altar-tombs. 
The good form of the letters, and the formula 





Wh, ENS 2, 
» (PROVING 


fe VGI4 \ 





beginning D.M. and ending H.S.E., date this 
monument about a.p. 100. I give in Fig. 68 a 
sketch from a careful etching published by Thos. 
Fisher in 1807. ‘The ornamentation of the altar- 
like top can hardly be made out now, and even 
the inscription cannot be read in the imperfect 
light of the Guildhall Museum. A careful copy 
based on a rubbing should be put on record, for the 


116 LONDINIUM 


surfaces of such stones are all the time falling away 
in dust. 

Several large half-round coping stones have 
from time to time been found in the bastions of the 
City Wall; they cannot have been taken from the 
wall itself, and so probably formed parts of monu- 
ments. Espérandieu shows such a coping to a 
dwarf wall surrounding a statue, and in the little 





sketch (Fig. 69) I suggest such an arrangement. 
Many half-round copings from monuments have 
been found at Chester. 


Toms-Howusss 


Several small inscribed memorial tablets suggest 
that there were some buildings of the “ Colum- 
barium ”’ type where the ashes of the dead might 
be placed. When after about a.p. 250 burial in 
coffins superseded the older way of burial, in- 
dividual or family tomb-houses were erected to 
contain the sarcophagi, and several such would 
doubtless have been found outside the walls of 
Londinium. ‘Tomb-houses were not uncommon 
in Britain; they were usually square or circular 


SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 117 


(T. Ward, Roman Era, p. 139). At Holmwood 
Hill, Kent, a circular buttressed building 30 ft. in 
diameter (4rche@ol. xxi., p. 336) seems to have been 
such a tomb-house. Of the stone sarcophagus from 
Haydon Square it has been observed that ‘‘as the 
back is quite plain it evidently stood against a wall, 
perhaps the back of a small tomb-house ” (J. Ward). 
Even the back slope of the cover was left plain ; and 
the back of the Clapton sarcophagus is also plain. 
Some of the sculptured fragments found in the 
Camomile Street bastion, while doubtless parts 
of sepulchral monuments, as Price thought, are of 
too large a scale to have belonged to mausolea of 
the Igel type. ‘Two of the stones evidently came 
from angle pilasters of considerable scale. As Price 
said: ‘‘ The size and weight of the stones indicate 
that the edifice was of proportions to bear com- 
parison with the sepulchres in the vicinity of Rome : 
such monuments were placed near the city gates.” 
One of the fragments just mentioned has a nude 
boy or Cupid carved against a background of foliage 
on one face, while the return of the same stone con- 
tains similar ornament without the boy. Probably 
on the front face there were several little figures 
one over the other. ‘This treatment for a pilaster 
is found on the monuments of Tréves. The boy 
on the stone at the Guildhall carries an object 
which Price thought might be a trident, but it is 
rather a torch ; amoriniand torches had a sepulchral 
significance. ‘These big stones must have formed 
part of the angle pilasters of a large square tomb- 
house. ‘They are more than 1? ft. wide, and one 
is over 3 ft. high, and contains two units of the fine 
carved pattern of very similar character to the 
carving on the Haydon Square sarcophagus. I 


118 LONDINIUM 


should doubt if it is much earlier, say, os aiD. 300 
(Fig. 70). The pattern is evidently a simplification 





of the scheme shown in 
Fig. 61 from a tomb sculp- 
ture at Tréves, illustrated 
by Espérandieu. 

At the Guildhall is a 
niche-head cut out of one 
stone into an arch form 
(Fig. 71). It came from 
the Camomile Street 
bastion and very possibly 
formed part of a monu- 
ment—perhaps a built-up 
niche surrounded a larger — 
scale figure than the usual 
reliefs of the steles. Price 
associated this niche-head 
with the stele now at the 
Guildhall, but that was 


rather all in one stone 


(see my restoration in Arch. Rev., 1913). A man’s 
head of larger size than that of the stele and 


separate from any 
background was 
found at the same 
time as the niche 
fragments, and the 
figure to which it 
belonged may have 
stood in the niche. 


Possibly, however, 


the stone formed 





Fig.i71, 


the head of a small doorway. Another monument 
at the Guildhall is a crude and late sculpture of a 


SOME LARGER MONUMENTS _ 119 


lion seizing some other animal. Many similar 
groups have been found in Britain and abroad. It 
would have had some symbolical significance. 
“* Mythological”? figures, such as Hercules and 
Atys, seem also to have been used for tombs. 

This examination of the few broken remnants 
of monuments that have been accidentally pre- 
served, which obviously represent but a small 
percentage of those once existing in the cemeteries 
of Londinium, brings out a new criterion for an 
estimate of the dignity and opulence of the Roman 
city. To this evidence we may add the extent of 
the walls and the importance of the port, and the 
fact that the city was the key of the road system 
of the country. It was probably a seat of the 
Governor; in the Constantinian age it became a 
bishopric and a mint town. Then we have the 
quantity and costly nature of the imports which 
are known to us from objects in our museums— 
an immense quantity of Samian pottery, decorated 
glassware, silver, fine bronzes, etc. We also see 
how closely the monuments of London resembled 
those of ‘Tréves, the later capital of Western Europe. 
Altogether I get the impression that Londinium 
must have been one of the most important com- 
mercial cities in the West. In the rote education 
of our schools, the great facts of our history are too 
much buried under an avalanche of minor details, 
and mere dates and names. If we can get a story 
written about Roman London, one scene must be 
set among the Tombs. 


CHAP TERE var 


SCULPTURE 


‘“‘ Fantastic and even grotesque, it possesses a wholly unclassical fierce- 
ness and vigour, and not a few observers have remarked that it recalls 
not the Roman world, but the Middle Ages.” —HaverrieLp on the Cor- 
bridge lion. 


IMPERIAL STATUES 


FEW broken fragments only remain to us, 
but they are sufficient to suggest to our 
imaginations the sculptures of Londinium. 

The finest work of sculpture found in London is 
the magnificent head from a bronze statue of the 
Emperor Hadrian, which was taken from the river 
near London Bridge in 1834. ‘The head, with the 
neck, is 164 in. high. It is really a masterly work of 
art, of Hellenistic character, and may, I think, be 
Alexandrian. ‘The treatment of the head and beard 
is surprisingly like that of the marble Hadrian from 
Cyrene in the British Museum. Here we have 
the close-clipped beard and moustache; also the 
double row of curly locks of hair over the forehead 
from ear to ear, and the hair close cut behind, an 
arrangement suitable for the support of a wreath. 
The beard is again similar on a bronze head of a 
man found at Cyrene, in the British Museum. 
The projecting ears of the head of Hadrian are like 
the ears of the bronze head of Augustus in the 


129 


SCULPTURE {21 


British Museum, found in Egypt. That the 
bronze head of Hadrian represents a statue and an 
erect figure is shown by the facts that one shoulder 
is higher than the other and the axis of the head 
and neck is bent. ‘The figure must, I think, have 
had the left arm uplifted. ‘The statue must have 





Fic. 72. 


been a splendid object in some public place — 
possibly the square of the Forum, or on the bridge. 
In a cast, when seen close by, it looks lumpy and 
even dull, but the original bronze as set up in the 
Museum is not only powerful but vivid; notice 
_the sharp eyebrows, the way the nose is set into the 
brow, the line on the forehead, and the strong 


122 LONDINIUM 


expressive mouth (Fig. 72, from Roach Smith). 
There is also in the British Museum a bronze hand, 
found in Thames Street, which seems similar to 
the head in scale and excellence of workmanship ; 
moreover, faults in the casting have been repaired 
in a similar way on the neck and the wrist. Roach 
Smith seems to have thought that the head and 
the hand did not belong to the same statue. Speak- 
ing of the head he said: “ It belonged to a colossal 
statue, two of which we may probably reckon 
among the public embellishments of London, for 
excavations in Thames Street, near the Tower, 
brought to light a colossal bronze hand 13 in. in 
length, which has been broken from a statue of 
about the same magnitude, and, apparently, judg- 
ing from the attitude, from a statue of Hadrian 
also. ‘The posture is similar to that of the marble 
statue in the British Museum.” Dr. Haverfield 
says of the head: “It appears to have belonged to 
a colossal statue of the emperor; the forehead is 
too short; the ears set out too obliquely; and 
the back of the head projects too strongly; the 
beard, too, is more closely cut than Hadrian usually 
wore it.” In another place he speaks of it as “a 
life-size head of the emperor Hadrian ; whether it 
belonged to a colossal statue of the emperor I do 
not know, nor does it much matter’ (!). In one 
aspect, Dr. Haverfield was a champion of things 
Roman in Britain; in another, he, as will be seen 
in regard to the mosaics, generally spoke slightingly 
of their quality. 

I may now sum up my conclusions. The head 
belonged to a standing statue. The hand, found 
separately, may have belonged to the same statue; 


it probably drooped and held a roll. The head 


SCULPTURE 123 


has the characteristics of Hellenistic art. ‘The 
expression is alert and eagle-like ; the close-cropped 
beard already appears on the head of Mausolus in 
the British Museum, and seems to have been main- 
tained as an Alexandrian tradition. The statue 
was doubtless imported and may well have been 
brought from Alexandria, a chief centre of bronze 
casting. Notice that repairs are executed in an 
exactly similar way on the head of “ Aphrodite,” 
brought from Armenia and probably an Alexandrian 
work, c. 200 B.c. A little silver image of Harpo- 
crates, also found in the Thames, is, I think, cer- 
tainly an Alexandrian work. ‘The bronze statue 
would have been set up as a memorial of the 
Emperor’s visit to Britain in 121. A “ big brass ” 
was struck in honour of the same event, inscribed 
Adventus August: Britannia, and the profile portrait 
on the coin is very like our head. It has the clipped 
beard and bears a laurel wreath. Hadrian was the 
first of the emperors to wear a beard, and we may 
take our bronze as evidence that he began with the 
clipped fashion. Not much attention has been 
given to this head as an early portrait of the emperor, 
but it is important from that point of view. Com- 
pare it with a small bronze bust of a later time 
found at Winchester and also in the British Museum. 
Other remnants of large bronze statues have 
been found in London. ‘Two fragments at the 
Guildhall are thus described: ‘‘(19) Arm of a 
bronze statue broken off below the elbow, Ig in. 
long; (21) Left hand of a statue, bronze, of heroic 
size, with traces of gilding, 9 in. long. Found in 
a well to the east of Seething Lane.” From a 
notice in The Buslder (May 3, 1884), it appears that 
the latter was found with coins of Nero and 


124 LONDINIUM 


Vespasian during the construction of the Metro- 
politan Railway. An article in the Fournal of the 
Archeological Association (vol. xxiv.) discusses other 
fragments of bronze statues. There must be 
evidence for the existence of four or five large 
bronze statues in Londinium. A bronze leg of a 
horse at the Society of Antiquaries, found in 
Lincoln, shows that equestrian figures—probably 
of emperors—were also known in Britain (cf. the 
Marcus Aurelius in Rome). 

Other Portraits—In the Guildhall is a tomb with 
a relief of a soldier, larger and in higher relief than 
usual, which was found in the Camomile Street 
bastion, and probably occupied a place in the 
cemetery by Bishopsgate. ‘This figure of a signifer 
is a little battered, and this accentuates a certain 
grimness of expression, but it is really a masterly 
work of unflattered portraiture. There cannot 
be many existing presentments of a Roman man 
more real; this has the face of a functionary, and 
the details of the costume are made out with careful 
accuracy. The mantle, or cape, partly stitched 
together in front, was like a chasuble. It was 
the penula on which there is an excursus at the 
end of Becker’s Gallus. ‘The sword had one of the 
ivory or bone hilts of which there is an example in 
the British Museum—every detail was evidently 
carefully studied from fact. Soldiers on the Trajan 
Column bear similar swords. It is probably an 
early second-century work. (The Colchester 
centurion (c. 100) has a similar sword-hilt.1) When 
we learn to value and make due use of our antiquities 
a copy of this relief should be set up to stand for 
the fact of Roman rule in Londinium. I gave a 


1 Cf. Daremberg and Saglio, Gladius. 


SCULPTURE 125 


restoration of the whole slab in the Architectural 
Review, 1913 ; it has been wrongly restored in 
Price’s volume on the Camomile Street bastion. 

The relief of the Colchester centurion, Favonius 
Facilis, is really a fine work, one of the most perfect 
representations of a centurion which exist (cf. 
Daremberg and Saglio). The niche in which the 
figure stood had a shell represented on its rounded 
top; only the hinge-end 
of the bivalve appears 
at the apex, and the rest 
may have been indicated 
by painting, 

At Oxford there is a 
soldier’s memorial stone 
with a sculptured relief 
of a similar kind to the 
centurion of Colchester 
and the signifer just 
described. It was found 
at Ludgate Hill when 
Wren rebuilt St. Martin’s 
Church (Fig. 73). Ac- 
cording to V.C.H. the 
soldier carries a dagger 
in his right hand. ‘This 
object is so long that Pennant called it “a 
sword of vast length like the claymore.” In 
fact, it is a rod held exactly as the Colchester 
centurion holds his stick, and I suppose it was a 
rod of office of some kind. The scroll the 
man carries in his left hand also suggests that he 
was more than a “private”; so also does the 
monument itself, which must have been costly. 


Roach Smith properly speaks of “ stick and roll.” 






3 . 
SSS 
BS 


‘ 
Son 
Neo \ 

—— 
—- SS 
Rg ae: 


TASS 





et 





BiG, 93; 


126 LONDINIUM 


There is a good drawing of this monument in the 
Archer collection at the British Museum. I give 
here a sketch made from the original 
at Oxford. ‘The figure is injured, but 
it was skilfully cut and gracefully posed. 
I should date it in the first half of the 
second century. At the Guildhall is a 
head larger than life-size found in the 
Camomile Street bastion, which, al- 
Fic. 74. though battered, shows character (Fig. 
74). The discovery of a marble bust 
of a girl, near Walbrook, was recorded in The 
Builder of March 12, 1887. 

Roman Gods and Impersonations.—It is hardly 
brought out in the history books that the in- 
habitants of Britain possessed a great classical 
inheritance. I would say possess, but we do not 
seem to have determined whether we are British 
or only English. For a thousand years before the 
Teutonic invasions of the fifth century a.p. Britain 
had been in touch with Greek and Roman cultures, 
and for centuries before that again some overflow 
from Mediterranean lands had reached this island, 
and the Celts themselves were a great European 
race. During five centuries from I00 B.c. to 
A.D. 400 Britain became fully Romanised. After 
that time it was probably only some small balance 
of forces which gave us a Teutonic language, while 
France under somewhat similar circumstances re- 
tained a Latin tongue. Greek gods and, doubtless, 
Greek stories were known here long before the 
Roman occupation, as the British coins (the most 
beautiful money ever coined in these islands) show. 
Already when Ptolemy wrote his geography, Hart- 
land Point, in Devonshire, was the promontory of 





SCULPTURE 129 


Herakles, and this is evidence which, together with 
figures of Hercules on the British coins, strongly 
suggests that some Hercules story became localised 
in Britain. Possibly, as the seas beyond the 
Gibraltar Straits became better known, the “ Pillars 
of Hercules ” were shifted to the headland facing 
the Atlantic. Hercules rescuing Hesione appears 
as a subject on Castor pottery. ‘“* This, and the 
corresponding scene of Perseus and Andromeda, 
were popular in Britain and Gaul,” says Dr. Haver- 
field, and adds: ‘‘ Whether the scenes conveyed any 
symbolic meaning in these lands I should greatly 
doubt.” I incline the other way. It is to be 
remarked that several altars dedicated to Hercules 
have been found in Britain: one at Corbridge is 
inscribed in Greek to the Syrian Hercules—that is, 
the same who had the famous temple at Gades. 

During the Roman rule, the Olympian gods and 
minor classical genii were, of course, fully adopted, 
and the monuments show interesting transitions 
of thought. Jove became a single supreme deity, 
while the most of the other chief gods were associ- 
ated with the planets and the days of the week— 
1 Sol, 2 Luna, 3 Mars, 4 Mercury, 5 Jupiter, 6 
Venus, 7 Saturn. This stage of thought is re- 
presented by the Jove and Giant Pillars before 
described. 

On the fragment from Chesterford at the British 
Museum we have Mercury with his wand, Jupiter 
with bearded face, and Venus with a mirror. 
These figures can be completed by comparison 
with others. There is a relief of Mercury at 
Gloucester. Another, illustrated by Espérandieu, 
is of the same sort ; he seems always to have carried 


a pouch in his right hand (Fig. 75). At the Gold- 


128 » LONDINIUM 


smiths’ Hall is a little altar having a relief of Diana 
on the front, a group of sacrificial utensils on the 
back, and simple reliefs of two trees on the returns. 
The figure is charming, graceful and 
well proportioned. The pose and 
setting in the panel are very similar 
to the soldier relief at Colchester, 
and I should date it about the same 
time, A.D. 100-150. The figure is 
very like a small bronze found near 
St. Paul’s, of which Allen gave an 
illustration; that also held a bow, 
and with the lifted right hand took 
an arrow from the quiver behind her 
shoulder. The objects carved on the 
Fra. 75, back of the altar are a table of offer- 
ings (compare the leg of a piece of 
furniture in Leicester Museum), a jug and probably 
a dipper (Fig. 76). Archer, who published etchings 
of the reliefs, thought he saw a hare here, but this 
was a misreading of the obscure forms. ‘This altar 
must have belonged to some temple or shrine. 
As Dr. Haverfield says of a somewhat similar relief 
of Diana found near Bath: “‘We 
need not doubt that passers-by wor- 
shipped Diana of the Romans.” 

At the Guildhall is the upper part 
of a terra-cotta image of Ceres, and 
fragments of a Hercules, perhaps from 
a tomb, were found at Ludgate in | 
1806. ‘There are many small bronze re 
figures in our museums—altogether 
quite a Pantheon could be made up of images 
found in Britain, and these, I feel, belong to us 
in a special way. | 








SCULPTURE 129 


In the form of impersonations of the days, the 
seven gods might still be available in a modern art 
language if we had sufficient sense to construct such 
an Esperanto. 

The Roman impersonations of places and ideas 
are nearer to us than the gods, and they indeed 
belong to universal poetry. Chief of these is 
Britannia, the “Sacred Britain” of the inscriptions. 
This impersonation was “ revived” (we may truly 
say so in this case, for it had life and reality in it) 
for our coins in the seventeenth century. It is 
astonishing evidence of the paralysis of modern 
architectural thought how little use has been made 
of this noble imagination which ultimately derives 
from the gold and ivory Athene of Phidias, and yet 
is our very own. A seated variant of the standing 
Athene was made to represent the goddess Rome, 
and this in turn was the source of our Britannia. 
Next in importance were the impersonations of 
cities, and every city and station had a representative 
figure which stood for its spirit, its genius, itself. 
Our French friends, in their images of the City of 
Paris or of Strasbourg, still make use of the idea, but 
we have ceased to know that a city is more than 
a congested area where landlords hire out what 
they call houses. I wonder if London were given 
an image whether it might not acquire a new sense 
of soul. 

In the London Museum is a pretty and well- 
sculptured figure which is, I think, a city imper- 
sonation and may be Londinium. It is one of two 


1] may say here that I have made some collections for a sort of Art- 
language Dictionary, attempting to register such forms and symbols 
as might be available for modern use, but I suppose nothing will come 
of it. 


9 


130 LONDINIUM 


sculptures in marble which seem to have been 
found about 1887, together with a Mithraic relief, 
on the bank of the Walbrook. It was at first 
identified as Fortune, but Dr. Haverfield objected 
that Fortune would have been a female figure, and 
he suggested “* Bonus Eventus, or a genius’; at the 
London Museum it is entitled Bonus Eventus. It 
would be hardly possible to bring forward any 
nearly similar figure with such a designation; on 
the other hand, a genius of Rome having a striking 
resemblance to our figure is one of the commonest 
types of the later coinage. Our figure, a graceful 
youth, holds a great cornucopia against his left 
shoulder and pours with his right hand a libation 
on an altar from a patera; a serpent rising from the 
altar winds around his wrist ; by his left leg is the 
prow of a ship. He has two wreaths or collars 
around his neck and is partially draped; his mantle 
seems to have fallen from his head like a veil, and 
this suggests that he wore a mural crown or a 
modius. Now the genius of the Roman people on 
the coins was represented with a modius on his 
head, a horn of abundance in his left hand, and a 
patera from which he pours, in his right. Such a 
figure occurs on several coins which bear the Mint 
mark of London and the legend Gen1o Popul: Romant. 
It is quite possible that our statue may be the genius 
of Londinium itself. It is known that our British 
Roman towns had impersonations wearing mural 
crowns—a fragment of such a figure has been found 
at Silchester. Our figure is clearly of the nature 
of Fortune, and the impersonations of towns were 
their Fortunes. The ship and the horn of plenty, 
piled up with fruits, corn and articles of commerce, 
are especially appropriate for a busy port. I 


SCULPTURE 131 


suggest that this figure might, and should be, 
adopted as the impersonation and image of the City 
of London. 

I had already written this 
when I found a figure illus- 
trated in Bruce’s bookon the 
Roman Wall, which isa close 
parallel toour figure. It was 
found at Netherby, and is 
described thus: ‘‘ The best 
piece of sculpture belonging 
to this station represents 
the Genius of the Castrum 
wearing the mural crown 
and engaged in the grate- 
ful task of pouring an offer- 
ing to the superior powers ”’ 
(Fig. 77). The resemblance 
of this fig- 
ure to that 
in the London Museum proves, I 
think, that that is the genius of 
a place, as does also the serpent 
which rises from the altar. An 
altar ‘’To the Genius Loci,”’ found 
at Chester, represented the genius 
holding a cornucopia. Compare 
Eva 5 two altars figured by Lysons (Relzq., 

yall pl. Iviii.) of similar figures appar- 
BY Fp ; 

WL ently male, each with patera, altar, 
snake and cornucopia. (Fig. 78 is 
one of those in the British Museum.) 

Wren, in an early design for the Monument,. 
proposed that it should be surmounted by a civic 
impersonation. 






\s 


4% ih 
3 Oi /4 
gr Vi J we ‘ 
a oct i : y! 
A oa Fai t 
a. 4 
ROD ~/ | Maedt 8 
‘ ay Pas 
ws \ as jf M4 
Soong 4 fl M4 
y r 


Fic. 78. 


132 LONDINIUM 


In Roman days every place and almost every 
field had its genius loci—an idea which we still 
timidly preserve as a 
“figure (Of i) Speecne. 
Many British inscriptions 
and sculptures relate to 
Silvanus, Rivers and 
Fountains; to the Deities 
of the Fields of Britain 
y Vg 4 (think of that now !), to 
Noid») Nymphs of the Springs 

4 Hs 4 (thinkagainof ours choked 

dy /g, with tins and old shoes), 
’ and to the God of Ways 









74° 


WF) bp, and Paths (perhaps such 
LY, an image would do some 
ale good at Liverpool Street 
cet and King’s Cross). 
Fic. 79. The other marble 


sculpture found with the 
Genius is the torso of a river god of a well-known 
type—and very well carved. The figure reclined 
supported by his left arm; the right hand carried 
a long water reed which rested against his right 
shoulder (Fig. 79). The 
head, with long curling 
hair and beard, is in a 
tradition which derives 
from the Zeusof Phidias, 
and the body had its 
prototype in the re- 
clining figures of the 
Parthenon pediments. 
Some reliefs of similar river gods occupy the spandrels 
of the Arch of Constantine, Bruce illustrated a 





SCULPTURE 133 


very similar figure which represented the North 
Tyne (Fig. 80). We have every right to assume 
that the torso in the London Museum may be called 
the Thames. There is some reason, from the 
conditions of discovery, to think that this figure 
and the Genius before described occupied places in 
a Mithraic cell by the Walbrook. ‘That a river 
impersonation and a genius of locality should be so 
found together strengthens the evidence that they 
represented London and Father Thames. Modern 
figures of the Thames and other rivers existed in 
seventeenth-century London. 

Mithras, etc—At the London Museum is a 
Mithraic relief, rough and small, but a valuable 
document. In the centre is Mithras and the bull, 
surrounded by the circle of the Zodiac. ‘“* Out- 
side in one upper corner the Sun drives up his 
four-horse chariot, and in the other the Moon 
is driving her car downwards. Beneath are two 
winged heads, probably symbolising the Winds ” 
(Haverfield). These heads are very well carved 
and quite pretty; so are the Zodiac signs. ‘This 
is one of many cases of the similarity of monuments 
in London and at Tréves. On the celebrated Igel 
monument is found another Zodiac, the signs of 
which (so far as they exist) are practically identical 
with those on our stone. In the spandrels are 
“heads of wind-gods, emblematic of the four 
cardinal points.” ‘These heads are winged like 
those on the London stone, and the comparison 
allows us to be sure of the interpretation of the 
latter: the rising Sun is East, the setting Moon is 
West, the bearded head is North, and the youthful 
one South. 

A small figure found in Bevis Marks, and now in 


134 LONDINIUM 


the British Museum, is usually identified as Atys. 
I have some doubt whether it was not rather 
Silvanus; but it may be a grave monument, and for 
such a purpose a figure of Atys would be appropriate. 
A small figure of Hercules at the Guildhall was also 
probably, as before said, a tomb sculpture. 

In the London Museum is another small sculpture, 
this time in relief, of a figure seemingly in country- 
man’s costume, standing in a roughly-formed niche 
or rock recess. By his side is some implement like 
a yoke, but I cannot suggest any explanation. It 
has ‘‘ character,’ and I should like to know what it 
means. It was found in Drury 
Lane. 

Bagford, in his letter to Hearne 
(1714), mentions a Janus head dug 
up at St. Thomas Watering on 
the Dover Road by Bermondsey, 
also a glass urn at Peckham, and 
several other Roman things at 
Blackheath. The Janus head 
was about a foot and a half 
high, and seemed to have been fixed to a square 
column or terminus. It was illustrated by Horsley. 
One of the two faces was Jupiter Ammon with 
ram’s horns, the other was female. 

I cannot here do more than mention the dozens 
of small bronzes, some of high excellence, which 
have been found in London; doubtless most or 
all of these were imported. Mr. Chaffers saw a 
beautiful bronze of an archer with inlaid eyes of 
silver taken out of the mud in Queen Street, Cheap- 
side, in 1842. A pretty bronze relief of Hope was 
found in Thames Street in 1840 (V.C.H.). I must 
just refer to a delightful little bronze Genius, 





SCULPTURE 135 


found at Brandon, and now in the British Museum, 
which holds a double horn of plenty. This, again, 
is probably a locality genius. Many of the small 
clay lamps found in London have pretty reliefs on 
them, such as a figure of Victory, a head of Luna 
(Fig. 81), a bird, or an animal. Altogether we 
have quite a large gallery of classical imagery of 
our own. 

Ornament.—Carved decorations were for the 
most part rude and rapidly cut, but they 
show some fresh thought and are very 
different from the defunct details which 
now pass for “classic.” At the Guildhall 
is part of a frieze of small scale (Fig. 62) 
which has running animals alternating with 
trees. ‘This suggestion of the forest was a 
popular motive of the time, and is found 
frequently on our native-made Castor 
pottery. Haverfield suggested that it might 
be a Celtic motive, but it is found on 
Samian pottery, and Espérandieu illus- 
trates a similar frieze of higher quality 
found at Mainz. All the Roman archi- 
tectural carvings found in Britain, it may 
again be said, very closely resemble 
works found in Gaul, and especially at ‘I'réves. 

The wide pilaster at the Guildhall (Fig. 70), also 
mentioned before, has a boldly designed relief 
of foliage arranged in a series of oval forms, one 
over the other. The interior of each unit is filled 
by the leafage being bent downwards. ‘The same 
scheme occurs on a mosaic floor found in Dorset- 
shire, now in the British Museum (Fig. 82). Fine 
Corinthian capitals have been found at Cirencester 
and Bath ; even in these we find the spirit of experi- 





136 LONDINIUM 


ment constantly at work. An example sketched 
at Angers in France is given in Fig. 83. “The most 
elegant piece of architectural decoration executed 
in Britain, which is known to me, is a frieze found at 
Bath, which is somewhat singular in bold freshness 





of treatment (Fig. 84). Again, this can be explained 
by comparison with a mosaic pattern. At first 
sight it seems an ordinary piece of scroll work, but 
examination reveals that the alternate elements 





Fie. 84. 


were complete circles. ‘This frieze is broken at a 
point which might seem to leave room for a little 
doubt as to this, and my figure is slightly restored ; 
but the border of a mosaic floor found at Frampton 
furnishes us with a complete example of the same 


SCULPTURE 137 


treatment, and this excludes any doubt (Fig. 85). 
Fig. 86 represents a more ordinary scroll frieze from 
Chester, but even this is brightened by the little 
birds set in the corner spaces. Fig. 87 is the soffit 
of a corona member from Bath, also alive and 
inventive. 

All this is very different from the ‘‘ Roman style ” 





of books and the commentaries on Vitruvius. We 
may see in such provincial Roman works an early 
stage of Romanesque art and even the beginnings 
of Gothic. Again, the fragment of a column at 
the British Museum, carved over with a lattice 





Fic. 86. 


pattern having foliage in the interspaces, is parti- 
cularly interesting as an example of an “ all-over ” 
diaper pattern, and a prototype of Romanesque 
carved shafts. At Tréves there are many examples 
of much more elaborate diaper patterns of the same 
type. Such continuous surface decorations speak 
rather of what was to be in the romance ages than of 


138 LONDINIUM 


the past of classical art. Even the series of acanthus 
leaves arranged like tiles on the “‘ roof” of the 
sarcophagus found at Haydon Square shows adaptive 
invention -and pleasure (that is what it comes to) 
in the doing (Fig. 50). 

If ever we awake to make use of our inheritance 
and set about civilising London, we might yet gain 
something of value from the Roman sculptures 
which have been discussed. A _ replica 
of the splendid head of Hadrian might 
be joined on to a bronze cast from one 
of the figures of the emperor in the British 
Museum and re-erected, resurrected, as a 
visible symbol of the Roman age in Britain 
and London. Set on a tall pedestal, it 
would make a noble monument. Copies 
of the Ludgate Hill Soldier and of the 
“ Signifer”’ at the Guildhall, we might 
place against each side, and the reclining 
River God—the Thames—in front, with 
an enlargement of the Genius Loci at the 
London Museum above it. Such a monu- 
ment would be something to tell the 
3 children about, and it might even move 
Fic. 87. the business men to occasional thoughts 

outside the fluctuations of stock. 

Symbolism.—Romano-British sculpture was cer- 
tainly not over-refined ; indeed, much of it was 
just the opposite. But ideas were embodied, 
and many of the things had simple and poetic 
meanings. ‘The power of making impersonations 
is specially to be noted, whereby an image stood for 
a thing as definitely as its name—Sun, Moon and 
Planets, Seasons, Winds and Waters, Countries, 
Cities and localities, events and wishes, Fragments 








SCULPTURE 139 


of a set of reliefs of seasons found at Bath, repre- 
sented by nude boys carrying flowers, a reaping- 
hook, etc.; the winged heads of Winds; and the 
rising and setting Sun of the Mithraic panel at the 
London Museum talk a universal language. 

Some study of the sepulchral monuments of 
Roman Britain gives many indications of the thought 
of the time. The coming in of the coffin, and then 
of the double coffin of lead and stone, suggests 
some concern as to an awaking after the sleep of 
death. The lack of late funeral inscriptions is 
another indication of transition. ‘The old myth- 
ology was softened and the characters were 
allegorised and reinterpreted in harmony with 
the mystery cults. We have seen that the Jove 
and Giant columns suggested triumph over evil. 
Mrs. Strong has dealt with this subject in regard to 
continental monuments (7.R.S., 1911): ‘* There 
is frequent preoccupation as to survival on these 
tombstones.”” ‘The cult of Atys was revived under 
Mithraism, as appears from “ countless gravestones 

. an expression of hope, of resurrection; so, 
too, his pine-cone must be symbolical of the belief ; 
there are numerous examples in Britannia.” In the 
Roman corridor at the British Museum is a frag- 
ment from the North of England, described as the 
upper part of a niche, which can hardly be other 
than the top of a grave slab ; on it are two peacocks 
between three pine-cones. Peacocks were symbols 
of immortality. The baskets of fruit carved on the 
Haydon Square tomb could only have one meaning. 
Compare a Gaulish tomb illustrated by Espérandieu 
(iii., No. 1789), on which is carved a peacock pecking 
at the fruit from such a basket, which is upset 
towards it. The sepulchral banquet symbolises 


140 LONDINIUM 


some sort of paradise. In examples of these at 
Chester, we find birds perched on festoons above 
the main subject, and we have found an example 
of birds and festoons in London. 

The group before mentioned of a lion seizing 
another animal was in some way “ apotropaic ’’— 
that is, it warded off evil influences like a horse- 
shoe on a door. At Colchester is a group of a 
sphinx having a skull between its paws, which is 
much. finer in style (compare Espérandieu, No. 
4675). Probably there were similar tombs in 
London; in the British Museum is a pretty little 
bone carving of such a sphinx. 

A grave slab at Cirencester has a sphinx and 
two lions carved on it as acroteria. A somewhat 
similar slab, found in the north by the Roman 
wall, has two lions with skulls. A lead coffin of 
specially fine workmanship, found at Sittingbourne, 
but doubtless made in London, now shown at the 
British Museum, has pairs of lions guarding a vase 
(compare Espérandieu, 4715), and little medallions 
of the Gorgon’s head on it (Fig. 152). “The most im- 
portant example of apotropaic sculpture in Britain 
is the great Gorgon’s head in the pediment of the 
small Corinthian temple found at Bath. 

The apotropaic nature of this sculpture has not, 
I think, been brought out. It has been explained 
as a symbol of Minerva, and the building has been 
called the Temple of Minerva; but for this there 
is no evidence. (I may say here that Lysons 
assigned to this building a fragment of an inscription 
which mentions repairs, but I do not think that this 
fragment should be separated from another which 
clearly belonged to a second building. Since writing 
this, I find that Mr. Irvine had already made a 


SCULPTURE 141 


similar observation. Wonder has been expressed 
that this head should be bearded, but this appears 
to be the Italian tradition.) 

In any story of life in Roman London, some 
of the atmosphere of mixed faiths and symbols 
suggested in Kingsley’s Hypatia should appear. 


CHAP TE Re Voi: 


THE MOSAICS 


‘* Here is grandeur of form, dignity of character, and great breadth of 
treatment which reminds me of the best Greek schools. Were I a 
painter I should venture to enlarge upon the quality and distribution of 
colour.” —WEsTMACOTT. 


OME screen appears to be set up between 
us and our Roman works of art. Even the 
mosaics, which we might have supposed 

would have been interesting—even fascinating— 
seem to be regarded as mere museum objects and 
subjects for antiquarian tracts. So far as I know 
there is only one book which considers them as a 
whole (Morgan’s Romano-British Mosaics), and this 
is rather a full index than a discussion of their 
artistic qualities. An excellent chapter in Ward’s 
Roman Buildings should be mentioned. Even pro- 
fessional scholars apologise for them. Dr. Haver- 
field wrote: “ They have the look of work imitated 
from patterns rather than of designs sketched by 
artists.” . . . “We admire them mainly, I think, 
because they are old and expensive. Few Romano- 
British mosaics are real works of art.” 

Against such a judgment I will call three 
witnesses—Westmacott, the sculptor, as above, 
William Morris, the master pattern designer, and 
Mr. Alfred Powell. Morris says: ‘ This splendid 
Roman scrollwork, though not very beautiful in 


142 


THE MOSAICS 143 


itself, is the parent of very beautiful things. It is 
perhaps in the noble craft of mosaic that the fore- 
shadowings of the new art are best seen. ‘There is 
a sign in them of the coming wave of the great 
change which was to turn late Roman art, the last 
of the old, into Byzantine art, the first of the new.” 
Mr. Powell, who repaired the Orpheus Pavement 
at the Barton, Cirencester, and became thoroughly 
acquainted with the powerfully-drawn animals on 
it, says: “‘ These creatures of the forest have been 
set out here in the tiny scraps of coloured stone with 
an ease and mastery that is remarkable. ‘There is 
grace in their gesture that has seldom been reached 
in the art of even the highest period of the life of 
a nation.” ‘The Woodchester Orpheus Pavement, 
which, judging from points of resemblance in design 
and details (a horned and bearded griffin, for in- 
stance), must have been by the same master, was a 
magnificent work, as, indeed, the fragment of its 
splendid border in the British Museum is enough 
to show. 

Completer lists of London mosaics than I can 
attempt here have been given in other places (see 
Morgan’s Romano-British Mosaics, C. Roach Smith’s 
Roman London, and V.C.H.). Here and there all 
over the city at depths of from about 8 ft. to 20 ft. 
pavements have been found submerged by the 
rising levels of the ground. Scores have been noted, 
many must have been destroyed without a record, 
and doubtless some yet lie hidden to-day. In 
an old MS. Common-place Book I have is the fol- 
lowing note: “On Wed., Aug. 15, 1733, some 
bricklayers digging foundations in Little St. 
Helen’s, Bishopsgate, discovered a Roman pave- 
ment, which by ye inscription [?] had been laid 


144 LONDINIUM 


about 1700 years ago. It appeared a very beautiful 
prospect, being in mosaic working, the tiles not 


above an inch square.” 
My purpose is to record a few fresh observations, 





Fic. 88. 


to bring out by grouping and comparison some 
general inferences and indications of date, to evoke, 
if I could, some clear idea of the buildings to which 
such things belonged, and to prepare the way for a 
full study of these remarkable works. 

The Bacchus Mosaic.—The central panel and 


THE MOSAICS 145 


fragments of borders of this mosaic are in the 
British Museum. A careful original drawing of 
the whole is at the Society of Antiquaries, and an 
admirable engraving by Fisher was published in 
1804 (Fig. 88). It was found in 1803 under East 
India House, Leadenhall Street.” The patterned 
part of the pavement occupied a square of about 





Fic. 89. 


11 ft., “‘ the whole was environed by a margin con- 
sisting of coarse red tessere an inch square traced 
to the extent of 5% ft. on the N.W. side—[note 
that it and the building it occupied was diagonal 
to the points of the compass|—but could not be 
followed further. The room could not have been 
less than 22 ft. square; but was in all probability 
considerably larger.” 
Io 





146 LONDINIUM 


The central panel of Bacchus reclining on a 
Tiger, at the Museum, has been restored and 
repolished. It may not now seem very attractive, 
but it is most competent in the balance of the 
forms and the strong, even fierce, drawing of the 
tiger; its bold eye, gleaming teeth, powerful paws, 
and the baggy skin of the legs are wonderfully 
truthful (Fig. 89). Notice that Bacchus carries a 
wine cup; this is the essential part of the design 
of the mosaic which doubtless was the floor of the 





Zl ae A\. 
Apa We \ 


= \ 







—_ 


\ 
= 


SS 


central hall of an important house. The brighter 
coloured tesserz are of coloured glass. 

The Bacchante Mosaic.—One of the finest of the 
London mosaics was found under the old Excise 
Office, Broad Street. I have an original drawing 
of it by Fairholt, dated March 1, 1854 (Fig. 90). 
The best authorities are two large original coloured 
drawings, one by Archer in the British Museum 
and the other at the Society of Antiquaries. The 
central panel had a white ground and black border ; 
the Nymph had reddish flesh and a light greenish 


THE MOSAICS 147 


scarf; the Panther seems to have been a grey-buff 
spotted black. ‘There was much black and white 
in the pattern work, and some of the fillings were of 
black and white triangles. 

It was described at the time of finding as having 
formed a square of 28 ft.; it was diagonally about 
north and south and 15 ft. below the surface. The 
central subject was “‘ Ariadne or a Bacchante re- 
clining on a panther.” In V.C.H. it was said to 
be ‘‘ Europa on the Bull,” but the drawings agree. 
with the former descrip- 
tion. ‘The composition 
is very similar to the 
Bacchus, and doubtless 
a wine cup was held by 
the Bacchante also. 
Notice that vases appear 
elsewhere in the design. 
The panel was about 2$ 
ft. square. This fine floor 
was taken to the Crystal 
Palace, where it seems to 
have disappeared. From 
its size and subject we 
may suppose that it was the floor of the central dining- 
hall of some big house. The drawing and balanced 
design of the central group is wonderfully skilful as 
space filling. Fig. 91 is based on original drawings 
of the floor at the Society of Antiquaries and the 
British Museum and a sketch in the Wollaston 
Collection at South Kensington. This mosaic should 
be compared with a floor found at Bignor, which is 
very similar in its details, and probably, I think, by 
the same artist. ‘There the centre is occupied by 
Jove’s eagle and Ganymede, the cupbearer tothe gods, 





148 LONDINIUM 


Vase-Panel Mosaic—In his account of dis- 
coveries at Bucklersbury, Price describes a floor 
found in St. Mildred’s Court which must have 
been one of the finer kind. ‘“‘ A square enclosed 
a circle containing a vase in brown, red and white 
with the addition of bright green glass. Around 
the vase there appeared portions of a tree with 
foliage; also an object resembling an archway 
with embattled figures and other objects, the mean- 
ing of which is difficult to describe without an 
illustration. Around the whole were two simple 
bands of black tesseree separating the circle from an 
elaborate scroll of foliage and flowers, analogous to 
that on one of the pavements at Bignor. At each 
corner was a flower showing eight petals of varied 
colours. From the centre of each sprang two 
branches, which united in a leaf in form like that 
within the scroll. The entire design is bordered 
by the guilloche in seven intertwining bands of 
black, red, brown and white tessere. A drawing 
of this interesting floor was in the possession of 
Mr. G. Plucknett.”? The central panel must have 
been a formal landscape—a large wine krater 
backed by a tree and an arcade with figures on the 
parapet. In another place Price names it again 
amongst mosaics which had glass tesseree ; probably 
the tree was of green glass. ‘This pavement also 
doubtless occupied a dining-hall. In an earlier 
account (London and Middlesex Archaeol. Soc. 
Proceed. iti.) Price says: ‘‘ When perfect it was 
of some extent, resembling those discovered at 
East India House and the Excise Office. In the 
centre was a vase similar to those at the Excise 
Office, and around it a scroll of foliage beauti- 
fully arranged, The fragments were packed in 


THE MOSAICS 149 


cases and sent to the workshops of Messrs. 
Cubitt.” 

An Orpheus Mosaic (?).—Roach Smith reported 
the existence, below Paternoster Row, of what must 
_have been an exceptionally fine pavement, which 
was broken up before any proper record of it could 
be made. This “superb pavement extended at 
least 40 ft. ; towards the centre were compartments 
in which in variegated colours were birds and beasts 
surrounded by a rich guilloche border.” The 
wording suggests a square room, and the two former 
examples show that large square rooms existed in 
London. In the villa at Woodchester the chief 
central room was nearly 50 ft. square; the pave- 
ment had “a central circular compartment ;_ with- 
in the border was a wide circular band containing 
representations of animals, inside was a smaller 
band containing birds; on the southern side was a 
figure of Orpheus.” ‘The description of the London 
mosaic suggests that it, too, had for subject Orpheus 
charming the beasts. It was found about 1840 at 
a depth of 12 ft. In 1843 part of a mosaic floor, 
‘with birds and beasts within a guilloche border,” 
was found at a depth of 124 ft. below the offices of 
the Religious Tract Society at the corner of Cannon 
Row (V.C.H.). Is it not probable that this was 
another part of the pavement described by Roach 
Smith ? 

Inscribed .Floor.— A mosaic pavement found in 
Pudding Lane as lately as 1886, and bearing an 
important inscription, was destroyed before any 
sufficient record of it was made. A printed version 
of the lettering was given in the Archeological 
Fournal of the same year by Dr. Haverfield, with 
some comments. (Also see 8.4. Proceedings, xiv. 6, 


150 LONDINIUM 


and V.C.H.) In the collections of the Society of 
Antiquaries I find a sketch of it by Henry Hodge, a 
careful draughtsman of the time. ‘This drawing is 
said to have been made “‘ from a sketch by I. W. 
Jolly and fragments,” so that its strict accuracy is 
questionable. It appears that it was complete on 
the right but imperfect on the left-hand side. On 
the right some parts of the pattern covering the rest 
of the floor and a border are shown and some 
dimensions are given. It looks as if the panel was 
about 5 ft. across and was the centre of a strip 7 ft. 
or 8 ft. wide. The letters were about 3 in. high, 
black on a white ground; the last four seem to 
have been D. S. P. D.—de sua pecunia dedit—and 
this would imply that the mosaic belonged to a 
temple. The destruction of these mosaics is a sad 
witness to the nineteenth-century type of intelli- 
gence. Of all of them only the fragments of the 
Bacchus pavement are now known to exist. I should 
like to find out what became of the Bacchante 
pavement sent to the Crystal Palace, and whether 
the vase mosaic is still in packing cases at Messrs. 
Cubitt’s. I wonder, too, what became of Mr. G. 
Plucknett’s drawing, and wish I could get tidings of 
it. The great pavement in Paternoster Row seems 
to have been destroyed without even a drawing 
being made; while the sketch taken by Mr. Jolly of 
the inscribed floor has, so far as I know, been burnt. 
And this was the high age of university education ! 

Bucklersbury.—The most perfect of the existing 
mosaics is the complete and restored pavement 
with an apsidal end found in Bucklersbury. A good 
account of it while yet in its place is given in The 
Builder (1869): ‘‘ It lies fresh and bright as when 
it was first put down. . . . It is to be hoped that 


THE MOSAICS I5I 


some pains will be taken to trace the remaining 
walls of the building to which this speaking pave- 
ment belongs.” Here, again, although the apart- 
ment was not large and the ornamental mosaic 
was more than a central panel, there was a broad 
border of the coarse tessere. Besides having been 
a saving, the contrast of the plain red with the 
variegated central area seems to have been liked. 
The interlacing squares of this pavement resemble 
those of the Excise Office floor, and its central rose 
is like a panel in the same floor. An angle-filling is 
similar to a quarter of the central pattern filling 
the centre of the small India Office pavement, 
which, again, had interlacing squares. A single 
cross-like pattern filling a panel in the British 
Museum is again like that of the India House mosaic. 
Many such references could be carried much 
further, not only in regard to London pavements, 
but including the country ones also. I reach the 
conclusion that they are for the most part nearly 
of the same date, and that many were by the same 
artists. 

Fenchurch Street.—A fragment of what must have 
been a fine floor was found in 1859 and is now in 
the British Museum. It is part of a panel which 
contained a vase and two birds. An illustration 
given in Price’s Bucklersbury shows that there was a 
margin of coarse tessere beyond, and that the panel 
must have been one of a series making up a handsome 
border. A fragment of a floor with a wide border 
divided into panels has lately been found at Col- 
chester. Roach Smith described the former as “‘ what 
would seem to have been an extensive pavement,” 
and he calls the bird a peacock. A good coloured 
drawing, in the Archer collection, of the fragment 


152 LONDINIUM 
shows the bird’s neck a bright blue; the blue 


tessere were of glass. Fig. 92 is from Price, but I 
have dotted in on the top right-hand corner the 
line of a more modern building from Roach Smith’s 
illustration. This is one example of many cases in 
which more recent walls have been carried up from 
the Roman level and square with a Roman building. 
(A in fig., and compare Fig. go.) 

Birchin Lane, etc—In 1785 a small piece was 





2? 


aCe 


=) 


” 





Ly %, 
% 


Fig. 92. 


discovered here of “‘a fine tesselated pavement of 
very small bricks and stones; of this, only one 
corner appeared, which is composed of black, green, 
and white stones and brick, forming a beautiful 
border.” Another account says that “ the tesserz 
measured about one-quarter of an inch and were 
of various colours.” I am particular about this, 
for the bright colours were doubtless of glass. I 
find a contemporary drawing of this fragment in 


the Guildhall Library, from which it appears that 


THE MOSAICS 153 


there was a fair blue besides the colours mentioned. 
(Fig. 93; compare Fig. 92 and a border illustrated 
by Mr. Ward.) Outside it were big red “ brick ” 





Fic. 93. 


tesseree. There is in the Guildhall Museum a 
fragment of another mosaic found in Birchin Lane. 
It is part of a 1 all-over pattern of a 


ie _ YI. 
yg 


Tic. 95. 


well-known type (the Barton Cirencester, etc.). 
Fig. 94 A shows the fragment, and Fig. 95 is a diagram 
of the complete pattern. Another piece at the 


154 LONDINIUM 


Guildhall has a sea~-monster of small scale but most 
skilful execution. The place of finding is not 
noted, but it is probably a fragment discovered in 
Birchin Lane in 1857, described in V.C.H. as part 
of a pavement “ representing a sea-horse.”” ‘Two 
other small pieces in the same museum are very 
similar in colour and quality, and may have come 
from the same source. One of these seems to have 
belonged to a pavement of square panels of knot- 
work framed in scroll bands (Fig. 94, B), or it may 
have been part of a _ panelled 
border similar to Fig. 92. Morsels 
of painted plaster were also found 
in Birchin Lane, where there must 
have been a good house. 

A fragment of mosaic at the 
London Museum comes from an- 
other all-over star-pattern similar 
to that at the Guildhall, but this 
plece was next to the outer border 
of the pavement. This fragment 
is of particularly beautiful colour- 
ing—quite a purple floor. I give 
a sketch of the fragment in Fig. 96; it must have 
come next the border of a pattern like Fig. 95. 

Threadneedle Street——Several pieces of London 
mosaic are shown in the Roman corridor at the 
British Museum, but not very effectively. Two 
are exhibited as given by Mr. E. Moxhay, but it is 
not added that they were found in Threadneedle 
Street in 1841. One is part of a passage and the 
other is a square from the centre of a room. (See 
illustrations in Roach Smith’s Roman London, from 
which Fig. 97 is taken.) Another piece found at 
East India House, Leadenhall Street, is not set 


ify 
V5000 Joes 
sae e222>523 


Pes 
we 
ONAN 
Dee Sse 
oe tian 
to] ed ~ 
eh es 
a [Si 
ihe 
San 
bs 
te 
Be | 
BH 0 
Ng 
Se in 
e 4 
aay 
aoe 
ae 
Ye} 
* 


73S tt 
ZL,e> 

mehen sk 
pee" 

Nh aces 





THE MOSAICS 158 


up rightly. The pattern is of two interlacing 
squares; the margin should not be parallel to 
either of these, but it should touch two of the points 
of the star form. (Fig. 98. See Sir W. Tite’s illus- 
tration in Archeologia ; compare also the Bucklers- 


FRACMENT OF ROWAN TESSELLATED PavEMENT 







DISCOVERED AY. THE DEPTH OF 14 feRT 
UNDER THE FRENGH PROTESTANT cHUROH | 
S : CES 
{8 THREADNEEDLE STREET, 


| 
APRIL 4B aE: ee | 





Saat erent pe et 
see | 


fated, 





Fic. 97. 


bury pavement at the Guildhall.) This floor came 
from the same level as the Bacchus mosaic and not 
far away from its position; probably the small 
chamber to which it belonged was part of the 
building which contained the large square hall of 
the Bacchus mosaic. 


156 LONDINIUM 


The Bank.—A fourth piece in the Museum is a 
square panel from Lothbury. Allen describes it 
as “An ornamental centre, measuring 4 ft. each 
way, of an apartment 11 ft. square; beyond this 
were tiles of an inch square extending to the sides 
of the room.” It is another example of the plan 
of having a comparatively small central panel liber- 
ally framed in much plain red work. ‘The device 
in the centre is a cruciform pattern. I can hardly 
think that from, say, 250 A.D. it would not have 
been recognised as a cross 
indeed. Compare the small 
cruciform centres of two 
squares of mosaic exhibited 
close by. 

The floor mosaics at the 
British Museum are dis- 
persed in two galleries and 
a staircase, and even so 
each one is badly presented. 
Fragments of the Bacchus 
floor are shown without any 

Fic. 98. key-plan of the whole. Of 

five on the north wall of the 

Roman gallery, the place where only one was found is 
told. Theinteresting little Orpheus mosaic discovered 
at Withington is shown by three single fragments, 
although an excellent restored engraving was pub- 
lished in Archeologia when it was found. I wish 
space could be found for setting them in their due 
relation and completing the composition in out- 
line. ‘The surface requires careful cleaning and some 
repolishing. ‘The floor from Thruxton on the north 
staircase has lost its centre since it was engraved. 
The engraving itself is shown in the gallery a 





THE MOSAICS 157 


hundred yards away, without any reference from one 
to the other. In this case, I think, the centre should 
be painted in on the plaster filling of the original. 

These mosaics must have been drawn out on 
the levelled beds prepared to receive them by 
the master artist and filled in by him and his 
assistants. [he preparation for such a floor is 
made clear in the description of a London mosaic 
found in 1785: ‘‘ This pavement, as well as most 
of the rest, was laid in three distinct beds; the 
lowest very coarse, about 3 in. thick, and mixed 
with large pebbles ; the second of fine mortar, very 
hard and reddish in colour, from having been 
mixed with powdered brick; this was about 1 in. 
in thickness, and upon it the bricks [tesserze] were 
embedded in fine white cement” (4rcheol., vol. 
vil.). The Bacchus pavement described before 
“was bedded on a layer of brickdust and lime of 
about an inch.” Powdered brick (tile) and lime 
made a strong cement which would finish perfectly 
smoothly and provide an inviting surface to draw 
and work upon. 

Several mosaics while not quite plain were 
simpler in design and perhaps coarser in execution 
than those already described. A star-shaped 
fragment found in Bishopsgate Street, illustrated 
by Roach Smith, was of black and white tesserz. 
It was probably the central panel of a floor, as 
Roach Smith said. A mosaic found at Lincoln 
had a similar star-shaped panel at the centre. 
About 1840 a tessellated pavement was found in 
Bishopsgate-Within ‘of black and white tesserz 
in squares and diamonds” (V.C.H.). In Bush 
Lane ‘‘a pavement of white tessere’’ is recorded. 
On the site of the Guildhall “irregular cubes of 


158 LONDINIUM 


dark grey slate and white marble” were found 
(Fournal B.A.A. xix.). 

Another pavement, found in Lombard Street 
in 1785, was ‘‘composed of pieces of black-and- 
white stone one-third of an inch square, prob- 
ably deposited in regular order” (Archeol. viii.). 
These black-and-white mosaics were doubtless like 
the counter-changed patterns found at Wroxeter, 
Silchester, etc. At the latter the Christian church 
had a square space for the altar paved in this 
way. Several years ago I drew a fragment of an 
identical design at Lincoln. This was probably 
a fourth-century fashion. The others may be a 
little earlier generally, but they overlapped into the 
Christian period. 

Many floors have been found in London which 
were wholly of coarse tessere of red, or of a few 
simple colours accidentally distributed. One of 
these is described as of irregular tesseree about 2 in. 
by 1% in., mostly red, but some black and white. 
A room 17% ft. by 14 ft., in Leadenhall Street, had 
coarse tesserze red, black and white, 1} in. square, 
and a similar floor “ of red bricks about an inch 
square with a few black ones and white stones ” 
was found in Lombard Street. Some floors found 
at Silchester had circular and polygonal tiles used 
with mosaic cubes filling up the interspaces. At 
Bath, if I recollect aright, there are fragments of 
pleasant floors in which larger irregular pieces of 
marble are set here. and there in a floor mainly 
of large red tesserz. 

At Silchester a polishing tool is said to have been 
found, being a lump of marble with an iron socket 
for the attachment of a handle (Middleton’s Rome). 

A general comparison of the British mosaics 


THE MOSAICS 159 


brings out the resemblances between the members 
of certain groups. The similarity of the Ciren- 
cester and Woodchester Orpheus pavements has 
already been mentioned. The London floor found 
at the Excise Office. was very like the mosaics at 
Bignor in both the patterns and figure work. The 
same pavements resemble others found at Sil- 
chester, and also the Cirencester and Woodchester 
mosaics. A pavement found at Stonesfield, near 
Woodstock, had a wreath of foliage springing from 
a head similar to that of Woodchester. It is obvi- 
ous that elaborate works in isolated villas cannot 
have been home-made, and it is likely that this 
group at least was the work of craftsmen estab- 
lished in some central city. No centre is so 
likely as Londinium, a wealthy town, the most 
conveniently placed for the importation of materials. 
We think of these works as “‘ decadent,” but really 
there was a new lifein them. ‘The centre of origin 
of the later type seems to have been Alexandria, 
and similar works to our own are found in Asia 
Minor, North Africa and Gaul. The use of glass 
in these mosaics is likely to have been an Alex- 
andrian innovation. Price gives a list of five London 
mosaics in which glass was used, and I may add the 
fragment at Birchin Lane described above. Glass 
was also used at Cirencester and Woodchester: the 
purple tesserz in the fine border of the latter in the 
British Museum must be glass. 

Taking into consideration the great similarity 
of mosaics found in the East—those from Hali- 
carnassus, for instance, now in the British Museum 
—to those found in the West, the character of the 
patterns, the mystical nature of some of the figure 
designs, and the swift ability of the workmanship, 


160 LONDINIUM 


I am drawn to the conclusion that the craftsmen 
are likely to have been Greeks. Some confirmation 
of this is to be found in the fact noticed by Wright, 
that the Greek H sometimes appears for E in the 
few mosaic inscriptions which exist. Mosaics must, — 
I think, have been works of the prosperous Con- 
stantinian age. The floor at Frampton had a XP 
monogram on it (Fig. 99); the Orpheus pavement 
at Horkstow, accepted as Christian by Cabrol, had 





‘eo '7 
5 
Or 


Fic. 99. Fic. 100. 


crosses (Fig. 99) ; and a second one at Winterton 
has a red cross by one of the animals; the pave- 
ment at Thruxton, in the British Museum, has 
crosses set in the border in what seems to be a 
significant way (Fig. 100). The other details on 
this figure also have a Christian look; the top one 
is from Bignor, the bottom one from Frampton. 
Fig. 101 is from the Orpheus mosaic at Withington. 
If the Orpheus pavement at Frampton was Chris- 
tian, the others are likely to have been so too. 
At least, they symbolise the Harmony of the 


THE MOSAICS 161 


Universe; they are not “ mythological.” These 
pavements are evidence of the cosmopolitan nature 
of Romano-British culture. 

Any idea of thought in decoration is difficult for 
us toapprehend. The 
records of the pave- 
ments which have been 
found in Britain de- 
serve study from this 
point of view. The 
whole art of the time 
witnesses not only to the professional skill of artists, 
but to the thoughts and desires of the provincial 
Romans—and natives too, doubtless—who de- 
manded such works. ‘They speak of a time 
when the old beliefs had been for a large part 
allegorised and fitted into a sort of poetic 
cosmogony ; the designs often dealt with the 
order of Nature. Many interesting details 
are to be found in these mosaics; Fig. 102 is 
a sundial which appears with a celestial sphere 
on the pavement at Bramdean. The fragment 
of inscription (Fig. 103) is from Thruxton. Large 
square mosaics which seem to have been the floors 
of central halls have been mentioned. In two 
cases, such floors found 
in Britain had sunk water 
basins at their centres. 
At Woodchester four 
columns were placed about | 
the central space, and there was doubtless an opening 
in the roof above. Such a central hall would 
have been an Atrium, and this helps to explain the 
planning of Roman houses in Britain. 








Pic,” 102. 





If 


CHAPTER VIII 
WALL PAINTINGS AND MARBLE LININGS 


Y putting together, in our imagination, the 
mosaic floors, the fragments of wall paint- 
ings, and the marble linings, we can gain 

a fairly certain knowledge of what the finer Roman 
interiors in Londinium were like, and we may further 
add to the impression by remembering the many 
precious objects in silver, bronze, pottery and glass, 
which are in our museums. Broken remnants of 
wall paintings have been found in large quantities, 
and pieces are preserved at the British, the Guildhall, 
and the London Museums, also at the Society of 
Antiquaries. Some account of several of them was 
given by Roach Smith in his [/ustrations of Roman 
London, from which Fig. 104 is reduced. ‘The frag- 
ment (5, Fig. 104), now with the others in the 
British Museum, is part of a pilaster-like strip about 
8 in. wide, of foliage springing symmetrically on 
each side of a central vertical stem ; it is on a dark 
ground, and marginal lines divide it off from a red 
space which covered the main surfaces of the wall. 
This “‘ pilaster ”’ was doubtless one of several. ‘The 
morsels (6 and 7, Fig. 104) evidently belonged to- 
gether ; the one-sided nature of the design suggests 
that it was next the angle of a room; and the loop 
in the upper part of 7 looks like the end of a 


163 


WALL PAINTINGS AND LININGS 





164 LONDINIUM 


festoon; 9 is somewhat similar; and the others 
may all have belonged to “ pilaster ”’ strips. 

The method of dividing up the wall space with 
strips of plain colour or with “ pilasters ” was very 
general. A simpler scheme was to have marginal 
borders only, and these were frequently of con- 
siderable width, made up of many bands and lines 
of colour. Dadoes were very general, sometimes 
only a plain band of colour or a horizontal bar 
running into the margins; at other times they were 
fully decorated: two examples lately illustrated 
in Archeologia, from Caerwent and Silchester, are 
really fine work. The latter had a 
row of “ panels,” alternating square 
and round, set with leaves and ears 
of corn, on a red ground between 
dark top and bottom bands. 

Stripes and Margins.—A piece of 
He wall of considerable height was 
“> found at Bignor, having a quadrant 
skirting at the bottom, a plain dark 
band as a low dado, and the space 
above divided into panels. At Cirencester a’ frag- 
ment was found which showed a band of fair 
yellow, edged with margins of white separating 
spaces of a cool grey-green. At the Society of 
Antiquaries is a piece of plaster showing fine red 
and green spaces, divided by a white band and 
a black line—very simple, but beautiful colour 
(Fig. 105). 

Of a great number of fragments in our museums 
one cannot determine if they only represent margins 
or whether they may have come from vertical strips. 
A piece of plaster from Silchester shows a broad 
band of red, then two white lines separated by one 






9 
GREEN W 


Fic. 105. 


WALL PAINTINGS AND LININGS 165 


of black, and then a surface of grey, except for other 
thin black lines. A piece of plaster at the Guildhall 
had a dark green band, probably 3 in. or 4 in. wide, 
then a strip of rather transparent crimson If in. 
wide, finished against a yellow line, then an interval 
of white 1 in. wide, followed by the green again 
IZ in. wide and a yellow line, then 2 in. of white 
and a single yellow line followed by a white area. 
This was certainly a margin, and here we get an 
example of a method of gradating the border into 
the general field. In 1785 ‘‘some large pieces of 
painted stucco” were found in Lombard Street 
(Archeol. viii.). Drawings made at the time are in 
the Guildhall library. A piece was banded green 
and black, with the addition of thin marginal lines. 
Two of the pieces were from borders having lines 
with additional touches. One had merely groups 
of comma-like hooks springing from the line =], 
and the other, little fleur-de-lis forms on a white 
band edging a bright blue space. These were, I 
think, coarser variants of the treatment shown in 
6, Fig. 104. The margins were sometimes ‘‘ shaded ” 
like mouldings; there are one or two examples 
of this treatment at Silchester. 

Pilasters—In some cases the ornamental vertical 
strips may not have been contained within pilaster- 
like forms. A fragment in the British Museum, which 
has an umbrella-like calyx to a number of springing 
stalks, may be one of these (Fig. 106). It is on a 
brown-red ground, and there are some other small 
fragments with leaves on a similar colour. The cast 
shadows make me think that it was independent of 
a pilaster. ‘The colour and workmanship appear 
very similar to the festoon of foliage from Southwark, 


described below; probably such uprights usually 


166 LONDINIUM 


upheld festoons. The head rising from a calyx 
illustrated by Roach Smith came from another 
similar vertical composition (8, Fig. 104). Two small 





‘Fig. 106. Fic, 107. 


pieces at the Guildhall represent a similar upright 
(Fig. 107). Again, in the British Museum is a very 





kK 





Fig. 116. 


Fic. 108. 


simple vertical upright, something like a prolonged 
ear of corn (9, Fig. 104). 
Figs. 108, 109, 110, at the British Museum, are 


WALL PAINTINGS AND LININGS 167 


from pilasters. Fig. 110 is a restoration of 3, Fig. 104. 
Fig. 111 is a small fragment at the Society of Anti- 
quaries; this, too, probably came from a vertical 
stem ora pilaster. Sometimes the pilasters imitated 
marble. 
_ Dadoes.—A sketch at the Society of Antiquaries 
shows the walls of a plain little room found in 
Leadenhall Street, which had pink margin bands 
along the skirting and up the angles, and another 
pink stripe about 2 ft. above the floor. The general 
surface was white. 
Other dadoes seem to have been divided up into 


4 5 
ei me 
ss 
= # *: 
f a 
ne. By 
’ ft P .< 
r K oI Scr hppa een es UE 
[4 Py 4 har uke v2 
Ms CA i Fy rare = Fc 
7 : 
ep) 1 





Fic. 111. Fig. 112. 


small plain “panels” or diagonal lattices. At 
Silchester there is a fragment with a green band, 
about 14 in. wide, crossing another at right angles, 
having a red line parallel with the green band with 
a “blob” at the angle. This seems to have re- 
presented a dado treatment (Fig. 112). At the 
British Museum are pieces of plaster painted with 
narrow red bands on a green ground, apparently 
parts of a plain lattice pattern. At the Guildhall 
is a small piece of plaster having a blue band edged 
by a white line and with a yellow line beyond the 
red ground, and another at right angles (Fig. 113). 
This is probably part of a dado; there may have 


168 LONDINIUM 


been little subjects or sprigs in the square spaces. 
This is a notable example of adding “ pearling ” 
to the edges of bands or the lines, a favourite method 
of the painters of Londinium, as several of the other 
sketches show. 

A large fragment of decoration at the British 
Museum imitates marble. A circle of green speckled 
“‘porphyry”’ has a margin of red “‘ porphyry,” with 
figured ‘‘ marble” of pink-yellow beyond. The 
circle is defined by scratched lines drawn on the 
plaster by a compass as a guide for the decorator. 
This was doubtless part of a dado for which the 





size of the circle is entirely suitable. Further, 
fragments of a similar dado were found at Ciren- 
cester in position at the foot of a wall. This is 
described by Buckmann and Newmarch, but they 
did not recognise the marbling as such. One square 
panel contained a circle speckled “‘ dark pink and 
black”? ; the panels on either band were yellow 
with wavy markings. Here, again, porphyry and 
marble were imitated. At Silchester, fragments of 
marbling have been found, and in the Rochester 
Museum are many other pieces. Most of these 
would have been from dadoes. A wall was discovered 
in January 1922, in the centre of Gracechurch 


WALL PAINTINGS AND LININGS 169 


Street, the plaster of which “still retained the lower 
part of square panels painted in black outline, with 
a simple ornamentation around, and the painted 
plaster gave the i impression that it had been coloured 
in imitation of marble.” 

Two fragments at the British Marcum: which 
were illustrated by Roach Smith and Wright, 
ee ociuiet 
eeghene ie 
with little flowers and figures in the intervals. 
These must, I think, have come from a dado. The 
little figure on one of the pieces is now broken, 
but a sketch by Fairholt in the Victoria and Albert 
Museum shows it complete with a level band at the 
top. It is so engraved by Thomas Wright, and I 
think that part must have been broken off since it 
was drawn rather than that the drawing was restored. 
Wright says that these fragments were from a large 
building near Crosby Square. This pattern is on 
a fine red ground. 

-At the Guildhall Museum is a piece which is 
fortunately larger than ordinary, and allows for the 
pattern to be restored (Fig. 114). The ground was 
covered with circles, small and great, the latter 
containing sprigs of flowers, all on a dark ground. 
This, I suppose, was also from a dado. The larger 
outer circle is made up of curious forms, which 
comparison shows were rose-petals. A fragment 
found in the Lombard Street excavations of 1785, 
of which there is a drawing in the Guildhall Library, 
shows segment of two circles, one within the other, 
red on bright blue, and apparently part of a powder- 
ing of small double circles. In the cloister of 
Lincoln Cathedral there used to be preserved, or at 
least kept, a large piece of a dado having a big 


are covered with a diaper arranged thus, 


170 LONDINIUM 


thombus with Amazon-shield forms at the ends, 
set within a long rectangular panel; this was of 
good workmanship and possibly of the second 
century. 

Foliage.—In the London Museum is a morsel 
of pilaster, about as big as an open hand, having 
small leafage painted on a brown-red ground. The 
leaves are sharp and struck in in a masterly way ; 





it is really beautiful (Fig. 115). The leaves spread 
from a central stem or line, and it is a part of a 
suspended festoon, I think, rather than of a growth 
of foliage. This must be the fragment found in 
Southwark. ‘* The débris of Roman villas, with 
pavements, ornamental bowls, and pieces of painted 
plaster have been found. One of these last, in Mr. 
Syers Cuming’s museum, has on it a slender stem 


with green leaves on a dull red field” (Mrs, E, 


WALL PAINTINGS AND LININGS 171 


Boger, Southwark, 1895. Mr. Cuming was a well- 
known antiquary). 

In the British Museum are, as said above, two 
fragments of a scheme of decoration, which seems 
to have consisted of festoons hanging from slender 
uprights (6 and 7, Fig. 104). Fig. 116, from the 
Guildhall, is, I suppose, a variety of vertical stem, 
but it may be part of a festoon. 

Figures.—Some walls had figures in panels or set 
singly on the general ground. At the Guildhall is 





¢ 
— 





Fic. 115. 


a morsel of plaster containing parts of two small 
dancing figures, which occupied a panel not more 
than 8 or gin. high (Fig. 117). From the composi- 
tion it appears that there would have been three 
figures altogether, filling a square panel (Fig. 118). 
The central figure is of a darker hue than the others, 
and apparently the face is male; probably it is 
a faun with two nymphs. ‘The painting of this is 
of high competence, and in full Pompeian tradition. 
The little panel, one of a series, would have been 
set at the centre of a wall division. Roach Smith 
illustrated the head of a figure of Mercury on a red 
ground; this was probably a single figure painted 


172 LONDINIUM 


on a general ground and not included in a panel. 
Evidences for figures of full size have also been found. 

A good foot on a blue ground and a piece of 
drapery of large scale of fine execution are in the 
British Museum: these are said to have come 
from Leadenhall Street (The Basilica ?). Wright 
describes some fragments found at Great Chester- 
ford, Essex. ‘‘A considerable variety 
of rather elegant patterns, among 
which were some representing portions 
of the human figure. The most re- 
markable of the latter was the foot of 
a female, as large as life, with drapery 
flowing round it. In one of the larger 
rooms of the villa at Combe End, in 
Gloucestershire, the lower part of the 
wall remained covered with fresco 
painting, on which were a row of 
feet, also as large as life, which 
had belonged to some grand paint- 
ing.” 

Parts of inscriptions have also been 
discovered. A morsel was found on 

Fic. 116. “Tower Hill of ‘‘ white wall painting 

with the letters [large capitals] S V P 
in reddish colour.”” At Woodchester, some frag- 
ments “‘ were painted with large capital letters 
Cie formed part of inscriptions” (Wright, 
rubs ey: 

Cast-Shadows.—It was the practice in figure and 
foliage painting to boldly reinforce the forms with 
cast-shadows (see a fragment of a figure in Roach 
Smith’s Illustrations, pl. 14). A piece of a foliage 
tendril or festoon in the Rochester Museum, from 
the villa at Darenth, has cast-shadows. ‘This is of 





WALL PAINTINGS AND LININGS 173 


long, delicate, grey-green olive leaves on a red ground, 
and the sharp shadow below forces it into pro- 
minence. Several of the ornamental patterns found 
in London were reinforced by shadows. A striking 
example is the large scroll foliage pattern from 
Leadenhall Market, where separate shadow lines 
and touches are laid almost like a secondary pattern. 
This, I think, from the scale of the work, must have 





Fic. 117. 


been part of the decorations of the Civil Basilica 
described in Chapter IT. 

Provincial Roman painting is not fine as compared 
with the great things in either Greek or Gothic art, 
but we must remember, in comparing it with any- 
thing we can obtain to-day, that it was the ordinary 
journeyman decorator’s work of the time. It is 
certainly far beyond the standard of common work 
which we reach to-day ; and Roman London, on the 
testimony of the arts, must have been quite a 
civilised place. A full study of the fragments in 


174 LONDINIUM 


country museums ought to make an interesting 
subject for a student who is prepared to take up a 
definite piece of research on the history of art in 
Britain. Further, suggestions for enlarging the 
scope of work undertaken by present-day “ painters 
and decorators”? might be gathered from these 
ancient paintings. Our workmen are capable of 
much better work than is ordinarily demanded of 
them. Their skill in graining was noticeable ; it 
was the last field where any freedom was left the 
workmen, and it was 
probably for that very 
reason (unconsciously 
functioning) that archi- 
tects have tried to kill 
it. It is our duty to 
demand free and in- 
teresting work. A point 
to be thought of in 
regard to the Roman 
decorations is the. 
character of the designs. 
These are not laboriously set out, transferred from 
a full-sized drawing, and painfully “ executed ” ; 
they are swiftly painted in masterly brush strokes 
and varied at will for the fun of the thing. 

Marble Wall-Linings.—In London, at Silchester, 
and elsewhere, fragments of coloured marbles, and 
even of porphyries, have been found, which suggest 
that they were parts of wall-linings, or rather of 
dadoes. Wright says, of the Great Villa at Wood- 
chester: “ Several slices of marble, of different sorts, 
but chiefly foreign, were also found. These had, 
perhaps, been employed to encrust the walls. Some 
of these pieces were not more than a quarter of 





WALL PAINTINGS AND LININGS 175 


an inch thick.” At Silchester pieces of porphyry 
have been found not more than three-sixteenths of 
an inch thick, and also pieces of fine white marble. 
At Colchester, fragments of Purbeck and white 
marble and porphyry have just been dug up. At 
the British Museum there are many small pieces of 
marble of various colours, and some of red and green 
porphyry. A piece of white marble at the British 

useum has a shallow edge moulding such as I have 
frequently seen on dado-slabs in Rome. Such 
moulding is an excellent way of joining up con- 
tinuous slab work. ‘The pieces of green porphyry 
at the British Museum are from the site of East 
India House (where the Bacchus pavement was 
found), and they were given by Sir W. Tite in 1884, 
who, about that time, wrote on the mosaic pave- 
ment. These pieces are cut into forms—a part of 
a circular band and a triangle; they must have 
belonged to some handsome piece of work, like an 
Opus Alexandrinum pavement. It looks as if this 
building, close by the Forum and Basilica, was of 
special importance—perhaps the governor’s palace. 

There must have been skilled marble workers in 
London. ‘This is proved by the fact that fragments 
of polished native marbles have been found. Roach 
Smith, as before said, speaks of “native green 
marble.” Fragments of Purbeck are common. 

At Silchester evidence has been found that 
mosaics were applied to the walls of a chamber 
in the Baths; and at Wroxeter a considerable 
fragment of wall mosaic was found in place many 
years ago. 


CHAPTER is 
LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS 


ETTERS.—Fine lettering is the most perfect 
thing in the art of the Romans. For one 
thing, it was developed on a field where 

they were not obsessed with the idea of imitating 
Greek art ; it was their very own, and it was swiftly 
carried to an apex of perfection in the first century 
A.D. It is a constant phenomenon on all the fields 
of Art that it is the first great flow of development 
which chiefly matters ; all things of life and growth 
are like this, and, as I once heard a fine old Devon- 
shire farmer say, ‘“‘ You can’t have two forenoons 
in one day.” ‘The Romans, not the Greeks, had 
the forenoon of the day of their manner of lettering. 
This manner is clear, sharp, confident; it is like 
Greek art only in being free. 

Early inscriptions had for the most part been cut 
on stone. Then from about 300 B.c. came a time 
of writing with a pen. Rome took this over from 
Alexandria and Pergamon, and these written 
characters became the foundation of a new style 
of monumental inscription. In pen-written char- 
acters the thick and thin strokes make themselves 
without there being any design in the matter. It 
seems equally natural in large clear writing to finish 
off the strokes with a thin touch of the pen to sharpen 


the forms. ‘This procedure was taken over so 
176 


aq 4q Mou 


‘gsnoyy] Jaqdeys ay} 0} oduRIQUA 


69g1 ur Aaqqy Ja}sUIUIIsa MA 32 


punoj quioy, ueWIOY ¥ JO JUOIy ay} WoIy UONdII9sUT—"611 “OI 





12 


178 LONDINIUM 


exactly into inscriptions cut on stone that, for the 
most part, it seems these must first have been 
written on the stone with an implement like a wide 
brush and cut in afterwards by a mason. The 
chisel, like the pen, is thin and wide, and thus 
perfectly fitted to develop the habit of the pen. 
The cut letters were themselves usually finished by 
painting. Whoever wishes to design inscriptions 
must begin on the writing basis, and I should like 
to advise every student who may read these words 
to take up the practice of writing capital and small 
letters with single strokes of the pen, not ‘ touch- 
ing up” or “ painting ” the letters, and, above all, 
not “designing”? them with high-waisted bars, 
swollen loops, little-headed S curves, and other 
horrors of ignorance and vulgarity, but learning 
once for all a central standard style. Half an hour 
a day for one week would teach much to any one 
who was ready to learn and did not want to do 
everything by genius. 

We have in England a great number of fine 
Roman inscriptions, and it would be an excellent 
piece of work to gather a selection into an example- 
book of illustrations based on corrected rubbings. 
Even the inscriptions of London carefully studied 
would be subject-matter for a delightful and valuable 
essay. 

1. The finest London inscription is that on a 
tomb front in the British Museum (Fig. 120). This 
must be a first-century work nearly contemporary 
with the famous inscription of the Trajan column. 
The letters are large, deep, clearly cut, and of quite 
perfect form. It is something of a puzzle that such 
an artist as the author of this tomb should have 
been working in London only a few years after the 


LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS 179 


Claudian Conquest. The letters of this inscrip- 
tion are still wonderfully sharp; the thick strokes 
of the big letters are about an inch wide, and the 
“serifs”” are light and free as the stroke of a pen. 
Notice especially the beautiful curve of S, the square 






















es Sean - + a Se 
TTS Mo a SS A \ \ 
. < 
: ) : 
\ 


i a Sat an = - : . 
¥ \ ma . £ > “-" <S : 
RRS FOO RS |r eons | 8 
Ne Rey LO pe Se a 
SNA : . 
i N 
» ‘ CaN \ 
\ irinian VA Pa ag dS 


SF ABALPINICLASSICIANI 


oN 

s 

N - fe 

t Aen 
. 

ee Ae 
,\ 

s 

Nad 


Fig. 120. 


touch at the apex of N and A, and the sharp little 
triangular division point after the second letter in 
the last line (Fig. 121. See also Figs. 66 and 67). 
2. Another very fine inscription is on the tomb 
front of Valerius at Westminster Abbey. The letters 


<( 


Fic. 121. 


are smaller, the stone is rather decayed on the surface, 
and it is not seen in a good light. The beauty of 
the lettering and spacing has consequently hardly 
been remarked. Here the lines are longer, and the 
letters seem to follow one another rhythmically, 
trippingly ; it is an extraordinarily vivid and elegant 


180 LONDINIUM 


piece of work, which, I think, should be dated in 
the second century a.p. The letters A M and N 
have cross touches at the apex of the angles, and the 
stops are little triangles as in the inscription before 
described. Here it can just be seen that lines were 
ruled (scored) on the stone as guides for ranging 
the letters (Figs. 119 and 122). 





Fic. 122. 


3. In the London Museum is a small tablet of 
white marble, which has similar lines, lettering and 
stops, and must be nearly of the same age. I give 
in Fig. 123 a very rough sketch of this excellent little 
slab. I have felt some doubt as to whether this 
was a London antiquity indeed, but the many re- 
semblances to other inscriptions have fully convinced 
me that it is, 


LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS 181 


4. At the Guildhall there is another small slab, 
having only a few letters, but these of fine early 
style (Fig. 124). Both these little tablets and others 


Ae NNEXV! 
~VEAVR-EVC 


VV AVRE 





Fic. 123. 


probably were set on the wall of some burial 
chamber of the Columbarium type. 





Fic. 124. 


_ §. Another inscription of much the same char- 
acter, but in smaller letters, is that on the hexagonal 





Fig. 125. 


pedestal in the Guildhall Museum, of which a 
sketch was given in an earlier part. This provides 
an example of a group of tied letters (Fig. 125). The 


182 LONDINIUM 


writers of Roman inscriptions allowed themselves 
much freedom in contracting words, in setting 
a small letter within a big one, as in Fig. 119, and 
in combining two or three letters together. In 


Fig. 126 I have noted one or two other examples 
not all from London. 


PIE ALOR? 


> 


Fic. 126. 


6. In a fragment of inscription from Greenwich 
Park at the British Museum, the letters were much 
compressed, and many of them were linked together 
(Fig. 127). 

It is difficult to draw out any general rules of 





Fig. 127. 


form and spacing; generally o and c were very 
round in form, N of square proportion, and M wider 
than a square. The round letters were usually 
thickened, not where the curves would touch 
vertical tangents, but a little under and over, just 
as is natural in writing the letters. ‘The loops of 


LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS 183 


D and R do not become horizontal at top and 
bottom, but bend freely. A, N and M usually 
have square terminations at the upper angles. 
Initial letters are not larger than the rest. 


DIBVS 
GATVR_ 
M 


Fic. 128. 


One or two examples of rapid cursive writing 
have been preserved on bricks and tiles. Fig. 128 
gives some letters of interesting form from a tile 


at the Guildhall. The A, G and M are on the 
eee NG pel) 
NUS 
PYEQAM 
eT) 


Fic. 129. 


way to be transformed into—a, g and m; appar- 
ently the hook of the “‘ a ” had its origin in the over- 
lapping termination at the apex in the monumental 
inscriptions. Fig. 129 is from a still more rapid 


scribble; L, T and E here approach our modern 


184 LONDINIUM 


handwriting forms. These examples are enough to 
show how the more cursive writing styles and our 
own handwriting have been developed from the 
Roman capitals. 

Roman books and correspondence were written 
in such hands, and Dr. Haverfield has pointed out, 
as such scribblings on tiles were obviously in many 
cases by labourers in the brickfields, it follows that 
the common people in British towns had come to 
talk Latin. Dr. Haverfield went on to question 
whether town workmen even spoke Celtic. “ Had 
they known Celtic well, it is hardly credible that 
they should not have sometimes written in that 
language. No such scrawl has been found in Britain. 
This total absence of Celtic cannot be mere 
accident’ (Romanization). ‘This argument over- 
looks a probability that Latin was a written language, 
while Celtic was not. We hardly realise our direct 
and full classical inheritance, and the fact that 
Londinium was a Roman city for three and a half 
centuries. Here the Latin Pantheon must have 
been completely absorbed into the common texture 
of traditional thought; here boys would have 
carried texts of Virgil in their satchels, and here, 
again, the story of the Gospel must have been 
brought in its first westward expansion. 

Inscriptions—In the notes which follow, I am 
more than ever off my proper ground, and, more- 
over, they are likely to be very dreary to any one 
who does not feel the romance of early London 
and Britain through all the dryasdust detail in 
which we have to work. 

An important inscription was found in 1850 
under St. Nicholas Lane. It was described in the 
same year (Gent. Mag. xi. p. 104): “A large slab 


LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS 185 


with the following Roman inscription in well-cut 
letters 5 in. or 6 in. in length: 


NVMC 
PROV 
BRDDA 


It is doubtful if the fourth letter in the first line 
be C or O. The stone is in fine preservation, and 
others ought to have been discovered, but the 
excavators were not permitted to turn either to the 
right or to the left, notwithstanding a gentleman 
offered to pay any expense.”” ‘This must have been 
Roach Smith, who, as the practical repetition of the 
phrases given below shows, must have been the 
author of the note. An MS. letter, which is in 
my possession, is as follows : 


“ Stroop, Wednesday, P.M. 


“My pear Farruott,—I have given Richards 
£10 for you. . . . In the Guildhall is a fragment 
of a large inscription from Nicholas Lane which 
we should give rather large. It lay just within 
the lower door of the Library. The letters are 
deeply cut and should be shown clear. Can you 
see if the stone be broken? [Sketch.] Note if 
letter 4, line 1, be a C, and please measure it. It is 
most important. I suppose it is half the original 
length.—Yours sincerely, 


‘Co ReSMiTh 


The stone had disappeared and‘has never been 
heard of since. ‘The size was recorded by Birch 
as 2 ft. 4 in. high, and 3 ft. wide on the face. V.C.H, 


186 LONDINIUM 


says 6 ft. long, but this is a mistake. Fortunately 
a careful drawing of the stone was made by Archer, 
which is preserved in the British Museum (Fig. 130). 





Archer’s drawing confirms Roach Smith’s reading of 
C at the end of the first line next a vertical joint. 





Fic. 131. 


My sketch by Roach Smith seems to be the only 
other record (Fig. 131). In Jilustrations of Roman 
London, he says: “It was found close to a wall, 


LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS 187 


and there is reason to think other stones having the 
remainder of the inscription were not far off from 
the one excavated. In the present year [1859], 
being desirous to compare it with my sketch, I 
ascertained it was not to be found. ‘The stone was 
between 2 and 3 ft. in length. The fourth letter 
in the first line appeared to me when I made the 
sketch more like a C (which I considered it to be) 
than it seems to be in the woodcut. From the 
magnitude of the stone and the character of the 
letters it is clear that the inscription surmounted the 
entrance of some public edifice, apparently a temple. 
It is probably the commencement of a dedication 
which occupied two or four stones. ‘The wider 
distance from the top than of the third line from the 
bottom weighs in favour of the belief that we have 
only the first quarter. There can be no doubt that 
NVM should read Numini, and that PROV BRITA 
should be read Provincia Britannia; the supposed 
equal length of the second stone and the number 
of letters required, render this reading obvious. 
Seneca and ‘Tacitus concur as to a temple having 
been erected in Britain to the Emperor Claudius ; 
the latter locates it at Camuludunum. This temple 
was probably erected soon after the subjugation of 
the Trinobantes. It may be readily conceived that 
Londinium possessed some edifice dedicated to 
that emperor. Although it is impossible to decide 
positively, we cannot avoid associating the historical 
evidence with an inscription which must have been 
of an early period, of a rare class, and almost unique 
in this country.” This idea that there were 
formerly four stones is now much strengthened by 
the fact that a curiously similar temple dedication 
is illustrated by Espérandieu (iv. p. 126) from 


188 ~. LONDINIUM 


D’Yzeures. This inscription begins Numuinibus 
Augustorum and is on four equal stones with joints 
meeting at the centre, thus +. Hubner (C.J.L. vii. 
No. 22) gives the boundary to the right of the 
London stone as a fracture, and restored the in- 
scription with Num. Caes. et Gento in the top line. 
It is at once apparent that this would not space out 
properly with the single words of second and third 
lines. Haverfield leaves out Genio and reads, “ To 
the Divinity of the Emperor and to the Province 
of Britain.” This, I suppose, might be possible 
in a contracted inscription, but I am drawn back to 
Roach Smith’s view, and would venture to suggest 
the possibility of some such restoration.as : 


NVM:C\L:AVG: 
PROVINCIA 
BRITAINNIAE 


etc. etc. 


I am ignorant whether it would be possible to 
have a dedication from the Province of Britain 
to Claudius in such a form, but if so it would be 
a record of great significance. The fourth letter 
was certainly C, because an O would not have 
avoided the joint. The letters in the top line 
were about 6 in. high, and the whole was of fine 
style. As Hiibner says, it is doubtless of the first 
century. It was certainly affixed to a temple 
dedicated to an Emperor-divinity. ‘The complete 
inscription probably occupied four stones. 

2. Several brick inscriptions are of special in- 
terest, as most of them contain the name London. 
There are two varieties: (a) P.PR.BR. in a label; 
and (4) P.P.BR.LON (Figs. 132 and 133). ‘The 


LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS 189 


former (a) has large letters, and they are enclosed 
in a tablet : it seems of earlier style than the other. 
Wright says of the second: “The most probable 
interpretation is Propretor Britannie Londinit; 
this has a peculiar interest as showing that London 
was the seat of government of the province.” 
When Wright wrote only a roof tile of variety 





(a) seems to have been known, but now there are 
several plain tiles at the Guildhall and one at the 
British Museum which have the same mark. All 
these are alike in having four notches in their long 
edges, and one flat side of each is scored over with 
lines to give better hold for plastering. It seems 
that these tiles must have been used for lining walls, 





FIG. 133. 


nails being driven in at the notches; their size is 
16 in. by 11 in. 

The explanation of Hiibner adopted in the new 
British Museum Guide is that P. in (a) and (6) both 
“represent the publicant who farmed the taxes 
(the ‘ publicans ’ of the Gospels) of the province of 
Britain in London,” - | 


190 LONDINIUM 


Nothing is so expert a matter as Latin in- 
scriptions, and it would be absurd for one who 
is entirely ignorant to pretend to a difference of 
opinion. I may, however, venture to point out 
that Hiibner himself does not seem very certain, 
and that the difference of the two forms seems to 
coincide with the historical fact that earlier Britain 
was one province and that later it was subdivided. 
Variety (a), I have little doubt, is a second-century 
inscription (similar labels are found on pigs of lead 
of the time) ; while form (0) is quite late (probably 
end of fourth century). The first variety I should 
like to suggest represents the governor of the 
undivided province, and the second the sub- 
divided province with its centre at London. If 
I am not entirely outside the possibilities of the 
case there 1s some confirmation of Wright’s view 
in the fact that other tiles bear the stamps of high 
authorities; thus a tile at Silchester has the name 
of the Emperor Nero in a circle, and other tiles 
are known stamped with the marks of army and 
navy commands. 

3. At the British Museum is a silver ingot 
(found on the site of the Tower of London), 
stamped with an inscription given as 


EXOFFL 
HONORINI 


and described thus: “Ex Of[ficina] Fllavi 2] 
Honorint : found with gold coins of the Emperors 
Arcadius and Honorius.” ‘The reading FL at 
the end of the first line is probably adopted be- 
cause the Emperor Honorius had also the name 
Flavius; but to my eyes the letters look more 
like FE, Other similar marks on silver show that 


LETTERING AND INSCRIPTIONS rot 


we need not expect an emperor’s name. (One in 
the British Museum reads EX OF PATRICI.) 
Roach Smith read the London inscription, EX OFFI, 
and explained the whole “ From the workshop 
of Honorinus.” I may suggest Felix Honorinus. 

4. Lying in the grass in front of St. Margaret’s, 
Westminster, is a large white stone, bearing only 
T II in what appears to be Roman work and style. 
_ It was found near its present site about forty years 
ago, and was accepted as Roman and explained as 
a boundary (terminus) mark. It may be noted 
that it lies close to the line of the presumed Roman 
road along Tothill Street to the river. The nearest 
parallel I have seen is a stone found near Falkirk, 
described in Haverfield’s addition to the C.J.L. 
(No. 1264) : T III (turma tertia). 

5. An inscription at the Guildhall 


MATR... 
VICINIA-DESVO-RES ........ 


is, as has been pointed out, a record of the re- 
storation of some edifice or sculpture dedicated to 
the mother-goddesses. The lettering is on the half 
of the crowning member of a cornice which may 
have been over a narrow door, and Roach Smith 
was probably right in assuming the existence of a 
small temple. 

6. A sketch of the inscription found on a mosaic 
floor near Pudding Lane is preserved at the Society 
of Antiquaries : it has indications not brought out 
by printing it in type, and an expert could probably 
gather more from it than has been made out. 

7. The sarcophagus from Clapton at the Guild- 
hall has a much-defaced inscription on the front 
panel ending apparently, as the catalogue says, 


192 LONDINIUM 
with the name MARITIMIVS. Here, again, it is 


possible that careful examination by experts would 
bring out further facts. 

These inadequate, indeed incompetent, notes 
on a few selected inscriptions are at least enough 
to show that the inscriptions of Londinium are 
worth the attention of properly equipped scholars. 
A carefully illustrated account of them might be 
made interesting to all intelligent citizens and help 
them to get really into their minds an idea of the 
Roman age in London. 





From A Retier at Batu. 


CHAPTER X 
THE CRAFTS 


N his account of Roman London, the late 
Dr, Havertield . writes (7.R.S., vol. i.) 
“The citizens appear to have been Roman 

or definitely Romanised. Of Roman speech in 
London we have an isolated but sufficient proof. 
A tile dug up in Warwick Lane, in 1886, bore 
an inscription, meaning, apparently, ‘ Austalis 
(Augustalis) goes off on his own every day for a 
fortnight.’ It seems to follow that some of the 
bricklayers [makers] of Londinium could write 
Latin. In the lands ruled by Rome, education was 
better under the Empire than at any time since 
until about 1848. The occupations of these 
Roman or Romanised civilians are unknown to us. 
Articles manufactured on the Continent were cer- 
tainly imported. ‘There were also exports of grain, 
cloth (or wool), and lead, and so forth. We may 
believe that Roman London devoted its time to 
financial rather than industrial activity.” 

Evidence for the practice of arts in Londinium 
is really considerable. It was doubtless first of all 
a port, and probably originated as the seaport of 
the pre-Roman city of Verulamium ; but it became 
the largest city in Britain, the chief distributing 
centre and the artistic capital. We are apt to think 


13 


194 LONDINIUM 


of Dover, or rather Richborough, as the chief port 
of the country, but London itself was the largest 
consumer, and the line of traffic was rather to the 
mouth of the Rhine than to Boulogne. Londinium 
was. a little Alexandria in the West, and repre- 
sented Britain as the other did Egypt. ‘The building 
of such a city called together many able craftsmen 
—builders, sculptors, painters and mosaic workers. 
There must also have been shipbuilders and a due 
proportion of craftsmen-producers, potters, bone- 
and metal-workers, shoemakers, clothiers and the 
rest. An enormous quantity of pottery has been 
found, much of fine imported wares, but the most 
part varieties of native fabric, of which a large 
proportion was doubtless made of local clay. The 
site of St. Paul’s Cathedral was covered with “ pot- 
earth,” and the town potteries seem to have been 
here. 

Native Pottery.—In the British Museum are some 
valuable MS. notes made in the years 1674~79, 
“by Mr. John Conyers, apothecary, at the ‘ White 
Lion,’ in Fleet Street” (Sloane, 958, 816, 937). 
In mentioning St. Faith’s Chapel, at St. Paul’s, 
he says that his father and mother were there 
married forty-five years since (from 1677). Inci- 
dentally, he speaks of two brothers, and of being 
“at Epping Forest hunting ye hare, but ye frost 
prevented the scent.” This is a late example of 
the sporting customs of ancient London. His 
observations refer to excavations on the site of St. 
Paul’s and along the Fleet. In regard to the former 
it appears certain that there were a number of 
Roman rubbish pits on the site, similar to those 
recently excavated on the Post Office site. Here also’ 
were found pottery-kilns and glass furnaces with 


THE CRAFTS 195 


pottery, bone and other objects. This seems to 
have been a manufacturing quarter of the city 
unoccupied by dwellings. Some sketches show that 
the pottery kilns were circles of small diameter, 
having a raised floor supported on a central post, like 
a table, all of clay and broken stuff roughly formed ; 
the lower stage or fire chamber was thus a ring 
around the central prop, and in the raised “ floor ” 
were several small holes. There must have been 
an external pit with a stoke-hole, and also a flue 
from the fire chamber. Four such kilns were found 
close together, forming a quatrefoil group. The 
dome of the kiln seems to 
have been roughly new 
formed over the pottery 
to. be fired (Fig. 134). 
Conyers, in the account ~lepSf 
of finds on the site of “@remgy 
St. Paul’s, gives sketches ~ IV 
of the kilns found at 
St. Paul’s with several | 
kinds of pots: ‘ Figures of two kinds of kilns or 
furnaces of various pots, jugs, etc., of different 
kinds of earth and pottery. One kiln in loamy 
ground about 26 ft. deep, near the place where 
the Mercat-house stood in Oliver’s time. The 
discovery made in 1677 on digging the foundation 
of the north-east cross part of St. Paul’s amongst 
gravel-pits and loam-pits. ... Coffins lay over 
this loamy kiln, the lowest coffins made of chalk, 
and this supposed to be about Domitian’s time. 
This kiln was full of ye worst sort of pots, lamps, 
urns, and not many were saved whole. Four of 
these [kilns] had been made in the sandy-loam in the 
fashion of a cross on the ground ; the foundations 





196 LONDINIUM 


of these left standing 5 ft. from top to bottom, and 
better, and as many feet in breadth, and had no other 
matter for its form or building but the outward 
loam crusted hardish by the heat burning the loam 
red like brick. The flooring in the middle, sup- 
ported by and cut out of loam and helped with old- 
fashioned Roman tiles, sherds, but very few, and 
such as I have seen used for repositories for urns in 
ye fashion of little ovens, and they plastered within 
with a reddish mortar; but here was no mortar, 
but only ye sandy loam for cement. . . . A censer 
or lamp, whitish earth; one great earthen dish ; 
earthen lamp gilded with electrum,” etc. etc. 

Again, Conyers says the labourers under part 
of the place where St. Paul’s Cross stood, 25 ft. or 
30 ft. deep, as the earth ceased to be black and came 
to the yellow sand, found earthen potsherds as red 
and fine as sealing-wax, and upon some inscriptions, 
“ De Ovimint,” “ De Parict,” “ De Quintimant,” 
“* Victor,” “ Fanus Rticino.” [These were Samian, 
but he goes on to describe very accurately native 
pottery.| ‘‘ And pots like broken urns, which were 
curiously laid on the outside with like thornpricks 
of rose trees, in the manner of raised work. Other 
were of cinnamon colour, urn fashion, and as if 
gilded with gold but faded. Some of strange fashion, 
jugs bent in so as to be six-square, raised work 
upon them pricked as curious raisers of paste may 
imitate ; some like black earth for pudding pans, 
on ye outside indented and crossed quincunx 
fashion. ‘They had some odd colours (not blue) 
in these times and a way of glazing different to what 
now ; the red earth bare away the bell.” 

‘“* Now, besides red pots,” says Conyers, ‘‘ such 
as have inscriptions in the bottoms [2.e. Samian], 


THE CRAFTS 197 


there were black pots with inscriptions and part of 
white earth and the glazing black, and both these 
might be made in ye places, as well as a gilded sort 
of earthenware. ‘There was a brownish sort in- 
clining to yellow, and the gilding easily coming off. 
Now, whether this was a thin wash of gold colour 
or foliated, I know not, yet I think foliated [really 
mica]. Other pots and urns of a whitish yellow 
and a soft kind of earth and shells strewed at the 
bottom inside. Now, other pots as thin as glass 
with raised work, and these as of a silvered or bell- 
metal coloured glazing. ‘The imagery, hounds, 
hares, stags, thorns, trees and branching, flourishings 
—all raised work. Then I have lamps of gilded 
British-work [local] and coarse whitish-yellow 
colours, and bottles and pots for dropping, of the 
same colours.” In one of his repetitions, Conyers 
mentions ‘‘ great potsherds and ears of six-gallon 
pots.” He also gives sketches of many of the 
vessels. Doubtless those drawn were in most 
cases whole vessels and they are of the coarser wares, 
other than Samian. It is probable, therefore, that 
they were pottery made on the spot. Dr. Harwood, 
describing the excavations in the site of St. Mary 
Woolnoth in 1724, says that “‘ Roman foundations 
were found made of offal of brick kilns and fur- 
naces ” (Soc. Antig. Minutes). 

It would be an easy thing to identify in our 
collections vessels which conform to the types 
sketched by Conyers and then to form a group of 
actual pots which presumably were made in London. 
This coarse and ordinary ware is usually classed as 
**Roman,” but it was in a large degree a Celtic 
inheritance. The black wares of “carinated ” 
profile (Figs. 135 and 136) and more or less “cor- 


198 LONDINIUM 


donned ”’ decoration are very like Marne pottery 


of the Celtic period. 


It seems quite likely that the 


potteries of Londinium may have existed before 


the Roman Conquest. 





Fic. 135. 





Many of the- decorated pots in our museums 
are so clearly described by Conyers that they, too, 
can be identified. It is evident, for instance, that 





Cateaton Street (Fig. 


Castor- ware vessels with 
hunting scenes in slip were 
as well represented in the 
finds as they are in our 
museums to-day. Hunting 
itself must have been much 
in the people’s minds, with 
chariot races and the 
gladiator ‘‘ matches.” 
Sporting subjects, such as 
are mentioned by Conyers, 
are plentifully represented 
in our museums. In Fair- 
holt’s sketch-book I find a 
drawing of a pot found in 
137). here is also a sketch 


of a fragment of a similar urn found at Chester- 


ford (Fig. 138). Compare the sculpture, Fig. 62. 


THE CRAFTS 199 


The piece engraved in Wright’s book as an example 
of a British hunting dog was also from a sketch 
by Fairholt of a London fragment. He also 
drew a piece found in Bishopsgate Street, which 
shows the heads of four horses, one over the other. 
This is explained by a complete pot at the British 
Museum, from Col- 


chester, which has Cer Bak eR, 

Feliels -of racing Spo d, Pm, Fy 
hari ioned SERS np Xe 
chariots as mentione Se ee ee Pee 


SBP SS5a FO VVoV SBOVH &O6.2 nDev 


betore (p., 51).. On Se PeR ARSENE ELLE 

another Colchester Fic, 138. 

vase are Gladiators 7 

with their names scratched above. ‘The eagle 

(Fig. 139) is from a fragment at Silchester. 
After having identified the pottery actually 

made in London, and the other native sources 

from which other wares were brought, we might 

go on to determine how far this native pottery 








is Celtic and how far Roman. Fig. 140, restored 
from a large fragment of very coarse make in the 
London Museum, and said to have been found at 
Mortlake, must have been made long before the 
Roman invasion. Figs. 135 and 136 are urns of 
Upchurch ware, carefully made and of lustroys 


200 LONDINIUM 


black surface. The forms of these are not 
Roman. The “ spirit’? of all is of Bronze Age 
and Mycenzan character. The black pottery with 
“‘carinated ” profiles found in London, and now 
in our museums, may be Upchurch ware, but from 
Conyers’ account and sketches it seems probable 
that black and grey pottery was made locally. 
In the museums, there are a few examples which 
seem to be clearly Celtic, as, for example, a large 
fragment at the British Museum with white stripes 
over a grey fabric. ‘There seems, however, to have 
been a curious disinclination to recognise Celtic 
art, and a desire to call all Roman. 
Samian.—The early prosperity of London is 
well shown by the great quantity of Samian ware 
which has been found of the period about 60-85, 
and by the examples of the work of the best makers, 
such as Vitalis, Rubricius, Saturnus and Rufinus. 
Of the first-named there are some excellent vases 
in the collection at South Kensington ; he distri- 
buted his pottery from Carthage to Carlisle, and 
from Pompeii to London. Saturnus has half a 
chapter to himself in a big book on the Roman 
pottery found in Trier. The Samian question is 
too vast for me to attempt to deal with it here, and 
I can merely note one or two details. In Fair- 
holt’s sketch-books at the Victoria and Albert 
Museum there are several drawings of Samian 
fragments. One of these, which I have not seen 
elsewhere, is an excellent example of animals 
running under trees—a scheme taken over into 
our Castor ware, which Dr. Haverfield thought 
might be a Celtic tradition (Romanization). (Fig. 
141, and compare Fig. 138.) At the Guildhall are 


nearly a dozen fragments of a rare kind of Samian 


THE CRAFTS 201 


vase, in which the ornament of figures and foliage 
was applied in separate units, the leaves, etc., being 


linked up by stalks skilfully done by the “ bar- 


botine”’ method. ‘Three larger and some smaller 
fragments come from a vase of rather globular shape 
Paeeumeewas. very x eee 
similar to a vase a £7 a4 P32 
found at Cornhill, au g - AOR 
one of the chief Sat .3 





treasures of the 
Roman Room at the = 
British Museum. — 
The latter is well 
described in Mr. Walter’s Catalogue of Roman Pottery, 
which is the best account available of pottery 
found in London. It is not observed that the 
Guildhall fragments contain a figure which is half 
lost in the restored vase at the British Museum. 
On the other 


ie Ye i 











——— hand, compari- 
SOBRE) aS son with the 
—— ae y) latter would 
is (Ge Wr == make it easy to 

J ¢ | AZ. restore __ the 

\ “Sy ye Ee Aes ne 
Lg, bey: ample. e 
MEAL aati of both 
Fic. 142. were formed 


by the same 

stamps. I give in Figs. 142 and 143 the scheme of 
the decoration : B was the general shape of the pot. 
Two or three other sherds at the Guildhall 
belonged to a somewhat similar but smaller urn 
which had Bacchic subjects—a satyr with goat 
legs, and a faun before whom is a wine jar into which 


202 LONDINIUM 


he seems to be dropping grape juice. ‘These figures 
were evidently also set between scrolls of vegeta- 
tion, and this also can be restored. Again there is 
a sherd of a vine pattern similar to Fig. 142, but, I 
think, from a third pot. There is also a figure 
from a dark-grey pot, which must have been yet 
another of the same kind. (For the last word on 
Samian pottery, see Oswald and Price’s Terra 
Sigillata.) 

A volume on the pottery found in London by a 
specialist, like that on 
Silchester, would be 
certain to bring out 
valuable historical 
results on the exist- 
ence and persistence 
of Celtic wares, on 
importations before 
the Claudian Con- 
quest, and on the 
large quantity of 
imports in early Roman days. 

Glass—Much broken glass is usually found on 
Roman sites, vessels, window-panes, etc., and it 
was probably wrought, in many centres, from 
imported material. Evidence of this has been 
found at Silchester and elsewhere (see Mr. T. May’s 
Warrington). Some window glass was described 
by Price as ‘‘ plate polished on one side and ground 
on the other”; this probably means that it was 
cast and that the rough side came next the mould. 

Conyers, describing the finds on the side of St. 
Paul’s in 1675, says: ‘“*’The labourers told me of 
some remains that. were found up and down near 
the place of the other pot-kilns, and these had a 





THE CRAFTS 203 


funnel to convey the smoke, which might serve 
for glass furnaces. For though not any pots with 
glass in them whole in the furnaces were there 
found, yet broken crucibles, or tests for molting of 
glasses, together with boltered glasses such as are 
to be seen remaining at glass-houses amongst the 
broken glass, which were glasses spoilt in the making, 
were there found, but not plenty, and especially 
coloured and prepared for jewel-like ornament, 
but mostly such as for cruets or glasses with a lip 
to drop withal of a greenish light blue colour. Of 
any sort of glass there was but little; so that the 
glasswork might be scarce, for I think a hundred 
times more of pots was found to one of glass... . 

“Now doth appear the Romans had excellent 
mechanics, pot makers, stampers of coins, and 
excellent workers in glass, for amongst those Roman 
pots were found glass beads as big as could be put 
on your little finger, and these hollow within and 
of blue glass wrought or enamelled with yellow 
glass, and blue beads of the colour of a Turkoise 
stone. Divided were these beads with threads as 
big as pack thread. Amongst the rest, great pins 
made of bone or ivory, etc., heads of many like 
the great brass-pins, and others vermicular or screw- 
head, others like the Pope’s triple crown; of these 
fell to my share as many as a pint-pot would hold. 
... Laken up a speculum of metal to show the face, 
of fine bell-metal. There were also found brass 
embossments with glass set instead of better jewels, 
which I keep, and glass drops that were loose, and 
the bottom of an old-fashioned crucible which had 
glass melted in it, and there were also pieces of necks 
of glass cruets to pour out by.” 

Much of the large number of plainer glass vessels 


204 LONDINIUM 


in our museums was doubtless made in the London 
glass works from imported metal, and probably 
some ornamental pieces’ were also manufactured. 
Thomas Wright thought that glass itself was made 
in Roman days on the coast near Brighton where 
“‘ pebbles of glass”? have been found; but from 
comparatively late records of glass making about 
Rye, etc., the Roman origin of the “‘ pebbles ” seems 
unlikely. 

In the British Museum are some fragments of 
glass vessels having moulded reliefs of chariot 
races and combats, with the names of the com- 
petitors above them. T. Wright illustrates “a 
fragment of a very remarkable cup in green glass 
found in the Roman Villa at Hartlip in Kent... . 
Roach Smith possessed two similar fragments 
found in London, one of which is identical with the 
Hartlip fragment in its design and appears to be 
from the same mould; the other is from a vessel 
of a different shape and has a quadriga in bas- 
relief. We have before had occasion to observe 
how popular gladiatorial contests and the games of 
the circus were among the Roman inhabitants of 
this island, and how often we find them represented 
on the pottery as on the glass.” If a glass vessel 
found in Kent is exactly like another found in 
London, it is probable that the former was itself 
obtained in London, where both may have been 
made. One of the fragments in the British Museum 
is from Colchester. We have seen before how 
that some of the Castor-ware pots were decorated 
with similar racing chariots, and one of these was 
found in London and the other in Colchester. 
Racing chariots also decorate a leaden box found in 
London and described below. 


al 


THE CRAFTS 205 


Glass vessels having reliefs of racing chariots have 
been found on the Continent, and in the British 
Museum Guide it is said that our examples “ prob- 
ably came from a Belgian workshop, as a glass of 
the same kind has been found at Couvin, in the 
province of Namur, bearing two of the same 
competitors’ names in a four-horse chariot race. 
Race cups of this kind date about a.p. 100, and have 
been found in France, Belgium and Germany. 
The six cups or fragments found in Britain were no 
doubt imported across the Channel.” ‘There is, I 
think, room for some doubt. In any case there 













at 

if , i \ 
ni iN} id 
ual Sea 


,. 4" 
it 
4} 
pox 





seems to be ample evidence that glassware was 
made in Britain and in Londinium. 

_ Much glass of finer quality was imported. ‘There 
is in the Guildhall Museum a fragment signed by 
a maker of Sidon, and fragments of several small 
plaques in the British Museum having patterns 
wrought in the substance are of a kind found in 
Egypt. At the Egyptian exhibition of the Bur- 
lington Club, 1921, similar plaques were shown, 
some having sprigs of flowers, and one a single rose 
petal pattern in yellow, white and red on the dark 
ground (cf. Fig. 145). The three pieces at the 
British Museum are all different and all can be 


206 LONDINIUM 


restored. Fig. 144 is from Roach Smith. Fig. 145 
is a rough indication of the pattern of another, 
and the third is a variant of Fig. 144. ‘These in- 
teresting and beautiful little fragments are obscure 
from age; they might with great advantage be 
partially repolished, laid out on restored drawings, 
and be made much of. The recent rearrangement 
of the contents of the Roman Room at the British 
Museum, and the admirable new Guide, have so 
greatly increased the interest of the objects that I 
want still more. I also wish that the London things 
in the collection could be shown together. Roach 
Smith never intended his objects to be separated. 

Enamels.—Conyers’ phrases about coloured glass 
“‘ prepared for jewel-like ornament,” and ‘“ the 
brass embossments with glass set instead of jewels,” 
apparently refer to enamels and seem to imply that 
enamelled objects were made at the London glass 
works. 

A large number of small enamelled objects, 
from little bowls to brooches, have been found in 
Britain. The art of enamelling was known here 
before the Roman age, but objects having several 
colours seem to be “‘ Roman,” although there are 
Celtic characteristics in the patterns, and it is 
agreed that there was a native manufacture (British 
Museum Guide, p. 95) of such enamels. ‘The finest 
piece is a “‘ casket ” in the form of a little vase with 
a handle. This handle has turned-up ends of a 
kind frequently found in Alexandrian silverwork. 
One of the bands of enamel is a meandering stem 
and vine leaves. This beautiful object was found 
in Essex, and there is in the British Museum an- 
other little enamelled bowl also found not far from 
London, at Braughing, Hertfordshire. ‘The details 


THE CRAFTS 207 


in these two pieces are very similar, so are those of a 
little enamelled cock found near the Royal Exchange. 
Notice the use of long triangular forms and narrow 
saw-edged fillets. It seems prob- 
able that all were made in London, 
and further evidence is found in 
a remarkable enamelled plate taken 
out of the Thames (Fig. 146). 
This ‘being an unfinished piece, 
was probably made in this 
country”—and city, I would 
add. In colouring and technique 
this plate (probably part of a 
memorial) is very like the objects 
already mentioned. A leaf form on it which ends 
in a tendril is found also on the Braughing 
bowl; both these pieces might have come from 
one shop. The type of ornament is remarkably 
Celtic. In the Guide it is said that “ debased 
Amazon shields can be recognised, and Riegel has 
pointed out that the panel is not a unit, but belongs 
to a larger all-over 

a pattern which could 
VC bé repeated in- 
S definitely, and reveals 

G an artistic tendency 
of the later Roman 
Empire.” I do not 
agree with either of 
Sao these statements. The 

pattern seems to me 

to have been designed as a reversed scroll pattern, 
subdivided by setting down oval forms in the spaces 
to counterchange the colour in a typically Celtic 
manner. In the diagram (Fig. 147), A is the pattern 








208 LONDINIUM 


type; B is the application to the space; C is the 
subdivision of the spaces completing the design. 
In D and E, I have made an original design on the 
same principle. Other details in the filling of the 
space at the top are Celtic. Notice again a heart- 
shaped form at X. ‘This form is frequent in small 
seal-boxes, several of which have been found in 
London, of which F is from one lately added to the 
Guildhall collection. It is probable, I think, that 
such enamels were made in London by Celtic 
artists. An enamelled harness plate found in 
London and illustrated by Roach Smith is like 
others found in Somersetshire (see G). A small 
brooch in the form of a fish at the London Museum 
may be early Christian. 

Leadwork.— Britain was the chief source for 
lead in the later Roman era. Of about a hundred 
and twenty Roman pigs of lead in the museums of 
Europe, about half were of British origin, as appears 
from the inscriptions. Cast sheet lead was used 
for coverings. Some actually in position was 
found lining the bottom of the hot bath at Bath 
in 1864. It was afterwards sold for £70! Mr. 
Irvine, in an article on the Corinthian temple at 
Bath, assumes that the roof was covered with lead. 
He says that the sheet lead found in Bath was about 
three-eighths of an inch thick and showed that it 
was cast on a sand-bed. Melted lead was found at 
St. Albans under conditions which suggested that 
it had come from the roof of the Basilica. We 
may be satisfied that lead was used for important 
roofs. Lead pipes are also found. 

Many lead coffins have been found in and about 
London—about a dozen in all—and they were 
doubtless made in the city. The fashion of using 


THE CRAFTS 209 


lead coffins seems to have originated in the 
Romanised East about the time of the recognition 
of Christianity, and those found in London follow 
the general type very closely. I give in Fig. 148 a 
rough sketch made in Constantinople twenty-five 
years ago of a lead coffin found at Sidon. Another 
coffin from Sidon has recently been acquired by the 






ics Lg 
MS Uy YW VG 
‘A388 AS A 










S 







SSS STR 2 
SR 
ue 





Fic. 149. 


British Museum. Figs. 149, 150 and 151 are from 
coffins found in London. 

One discovered many years ago in South London, 
illustrated in Archeologia, vol. xvii., had on it two 
little figures like Minerva—probably Britannia. 
Another found at Sittingbourne, recently set out 
for exhibition at the British Museum, has little 
Medusa heads and pairs of lions watching a vase 
(Fig. 152). 

14 


210 LONDINIUM 


A round lead box, for the reception of burnt 
bones, found in London and now in the British 
Museum, has repeated on it a relief of a four-horse 
chariot. This is described in the Guide as the 
chariot of the Sun; but comparison with other 
chariot-racing groups on the pottery and glass 






cS 
& 


= om nono, : Nuala) z = = —— 
ty Rw a, \ Z ge 2 
i ~ : Oo i Kays Ce ZB : 
\ “4 >, NS : }, a LE 
“oe ‘ QS i’ Yea 
i os RB: y >, ee. 
“GF ~ ~ / a ee) q sz 
i\ “Re S” So hii 
a y IN = 
SHAN ONSM MSN Sy 2 SP A rs BB 


Aamo See 






Z, G 
7 
NOM IN ey 


vessels shows that these reliefs must also represent 
This fact adds to the 
probability that the glass vessels with reliefs of 
racing chariots were also made in Londinium. 
Fig. 154 is from a simpler lead box found in Lon- 
don; compare the rings with the painted pattern 


a chariot race (Fig. 153). 


described at the bottom of p. 169. 


THE CRAFTS 211 


Pewter—A large quantity of pewter ware, 
vessels and dishes, has been discovered in Britain. 
Many ingots of the metal were found in the last 
century at Battersea in the river. lLysons figured 





a fragment of “‘lead”’ found at Lydney stamped 
with a name, and this may have been pewter. 
The ingots of pewter were doubtless of British 
origin, and it is very probable that the finished 


DO eee 
Cres x ie) 
LOS . 
CYS EAY:: 
NW ay 
AN 


‘iS 
= a > 
e ON, 

WANS 





Fic. 153. Fic. 154. 


objects of this metal were manufactured here. 
Many of the dishes have engraved centres of a 
type of design which can hardly be earlier than the 
fourth century. This engraving was filled with 
black composition imitating xzello. The ingots 


212 LONDINIUM 


bear marks which show that they belong to a time 
when Christianity was recognised. 

In the London Museum is a dish with an en- 
graved centre, and at the British Museum are some 
plain dishes signed with the name of the owner 
or maker, Martinus, which were found in South- 
wark. Most of the finds of pewter ware have been 
made in south-east England, and London is the 
most likely place of origin. Lysons illustrates a 
dish found at Manchester (it is now in the British 
Museum) with an engraved centre so like those 
found in the south of England that it is probable 
it also was made in the south. These dishes were 
finished in a lathe; at the back they have traces 
of three projections by which they were held in 
turning but afterwards cut away. 

Bone, Leatherwork, etc—We have seen above 
that Conyers speaks of the large quantity of bone 
objects found in excavations. Of the St. Paul’s 
site he says: ‘“‘And amongst ye heap or mixture of 
rubbish, hartshorn sawed into pieces, old heifers’ 
horns, and abundance of boars’ tusks—some in 
their jaw bones which shows that they did often 
hunt ye wild boar. . . . It is very remarkable that 
ivory-work and great pins made of bone and bodkins 
of great numbers was found buried together with 
store of boars’ teeth, of oysters and other shells, 
Roman coins and ornamental beads, of blue like 
enamel and the fibule they used to fasten their 
garments, earthenware with inscriptions and glass 
was found in gravel pits near St. Paul’s School.” 
Several carved pieces of similar style in the London 
Museum — notably little reliefs of gladiators — 
suggest that there were expert bone carvers in 
London. A bone pin with a figure of Fortuna 


THE CRAFTS 213 


found in London, and a carving of a sphinx from 
Colchester—both in the British Museum—are 
really beautiful work. ‘The admirable fragments of 
an ivory scabbard found in Greenwich Park in 1906 
can hardly be London work. 

A considerable number of beautifully - made 
leather shoes having elaborately pierced patterns 
are doubtless of local work. One found at South- 
fleet, now at the British Museum, was coloured 
purple and decorated with gilding, as is recorded on 
a drawing at the Society of Antiquaries, made when 
it was newly found. 

The site of London is still unexhausted; even 
while I am writing this I see in the morning’s 
paper, ‘“‘ Recent excavations in Lothbury have 
brought to light relics of Roman occupation—bone 
bodkins, oyster shells and broken pottery. The 
bodkins are large, and it is thought that they were 
probably used in mat-making.” London must 
have been an art-producing centre for two thousand 
years. 





LocaLLy MADE PorTTeErRY. 


CHAP TE Raa 


EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON 


“It was no longer thought to be Britain but a Roman island; and 
all their money was stamped with Czsar’s image. Meanwhile these 
islands, stiff with frost, received the beams of light, the holy precepts 
of Christ, the true Sun, at the later part of the reign of Tiberius Cesar.” 
—GILDAS. 


HRISTIAN BRITAIN.—The whole subject 
of Christian antiquities in Britain was for 
a long time clouded by mere doubt of 
testimony, until the comparatively recent dis- 
covery of the foundations of an early Christian 
basilican church at Silchester, in 1892, gradually 
changed the temperature and atmosphere in which 
facts areseen. ‘Thomas Wright had swept the thing 
aside, Gildas and all. ‘This difference of attitude 
is well brought out in the earlier and more recent 
writings of Dr. Haverfield. Compare, for in- 
stance, his over-cautious article in the English 
Historical Review about twenty years ago with 
another in Archeologia Aliana, 1917, which is 
written in quite a different temper. It is now clear 
that Britain marched with Gaul in the acceptance 
of Christianity, although one step behind. 

In Cabrol’s great French Dictionary of Christian 
Antiquities we may obtain a valuable unbiased 
account of British Christian antiquities. The best 
general introduction known to me is a chapter in 


214 


EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON ~ 215 


Sir C. Oman’s excellent England before the Norman 
Conquest, from which | will condense a paragraph. 
“There is no doubt that individual Christians, 
perhaps even small communities, were to be found 
in Britain as early as the second century. ‘There is 
no reason to doubt Tertullian writing in about 
A.D. 208, or Origen writing about a.p. 230, that the 
Christian religion had converts in the province 
of the extreme north-west. . . . In the long peace 
which followed the persecution of Severus the new 
religion pushed northward and westward with 
greater power. ‘here seems no reason to doubt 
the small number of British martyrs whose names 
appear in the earliest martyrologies. The very 
early martyrology gives three names drawn from 
Britain—the latest St. Patrick (obiit c. 461), the 
other two are Augulus, bishop of Augusta (London), 
and Alban. We know nothing of Augulus, but the 
fact that his See is called Augusta shows that the 
name was taken down between 340 and 410, for 
London was only known as Augusta in the second 
half of the fourth century. Of Alban’s existence 
our knowledge is more certain, since Germanus 
visited his grave in 429; his cult, therefore, was 
well established in the early fifth century. ... As 
early as 314, three bishops from Britain appeared 
at the Council of Arles—Eborius of York, Restitutus 
of London and Adelphius of Lincoln. There seems 
reason to think that the bulk of the population 
remained pagan till a later date than was the case 
elsewhere. If the Christians of Calleva found the 
diminutive church lately discovered sufficient for 
their needs they must have been but a few hundreds. 
In that same town a temple to Mars was found, 
which must have been used down to the end. If 


216 LONDINIUM 


Calleva had become completely Christian before its 
evacuation the image of Mars would not have been 
left. The small number of Christian sepulchral 
inscriptions is notable, though such have been found 
at Carlisle, Lincoln and elsewhere. It is very 
strange that a religion which was first publicly 
tolerated, and later encouraged for nearly a hundred 
years before a.p. 410, should have left so few records. 
The existence of a vigorous British Christendom 
in the fourth century is sufficiently proved by 
literary evidence. Without that evidence we should 
have gathered little from archzological research. 
Secular inscriptions and buildings of the fourth 
century are rare, no less than ecclesiastical ones. 
The British Church produced, in the last days of 
the Romans, a heresiarch, the celebrated Pelagius, 
a monk. Born about 370-80, he taught in Rome 
itself. ‘The earliest recorded works written by 
Britons are those of the heresiarch and of a British 
bishop named Fastidius.”’ 

In an excellent short account of British Christian 
antiquities in the new Guide to the Christian Collec- 
tion at the British Museum (1921), Mr. Dalton re- 
marks that “the statement of the sixth-century 
British historian, Gildas, that in Roman times Britain 
had many churches was always credible, but positive 
proof was not forthcoming until the excavations 
on the site of Calleva (Silchester) brought to light 
the foundations of a church, the Roman origin of 
which is beyond dispute.” Gildas, again, is con- 
firmed by Bede’s account of ruined Christian 
churches existing in the sixth century. According 
to Cabrol’s Dictionary even some of the greater 
country villas, like Chedworth, were occupied 
_ by Christian proprietors. On a mosaic pavement 


EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON 217 


at Frampton the monogram of Christ appears in the 
central space of a border. It has been argued that 
the monogram might be later than the pavement, 
but the design of the border itself shows that it 
had a central feature from the first. It seems 
probable to me, as before said, that several other 
mosaic pavements were Christian. 

A British Church.—The little church at Sil- 
chester is extraordinarily interesting in many ways. 
It was probably built not later than the middle of | 
the fourth century and is thus one of the earliest 
churches known. It occupied an important posi- 





Fic. 155. Fic. 156. Fic. 157. 


tion in the city close to the Forum, and it is probable 
from this and from the importance of the city that 
it was a bishop’s church. Moreover, it is evident 
that if there was such a church at Silchester there 
must have been others in Canterbury, Verulam, 
London and other cities. This church was only 
about 30 ft. square, exclusive of the narthex (Fig. 
155). Some day, when we reverence our anti- 
quities more, it might be excavated once again and, 
having a decent roof erected over it, be made a place 
of pilgrimage. I should like to see a copy of it put 
up somewhere for use—it might cost half as much as 


218 LONDINIUM 


a poor stained-glass window. As I have just said, 
the plan, exclusive of the narthex, was square, so 
also is the plan of an early church in Asia Minor 
which I give for comparison (Fig. 156). ‘This 
squareness was, I believe, intended as a symbol of the 
Ark. I also give the altar end of an early church 
in Greece, Fig. 157 (Nichopoleos: see Athenian 
Ephemertis, 1916). 

The plan of the Silchester church seems to be of 
an Eastern rather than Roman type; and small as 
it is, it has slight transeptal projections which, when 
compared with the other plans, show that the form 
of the cross was intended to be suggested. ‘The 
altar was not regarded as being in the apse, but 
rather in front of it (compare Fig. 157). ‘The apse 
was to the west and the entrance at the east, follow- 
ing the early custom. In front was a court with a 
water basin in the centre. In regard to the non- 
Roman character of the plan, it may be noted that 
the late Mr. Edmund Bishop, a great liturgical 
authority, showed that early Irish Christianity was 
of an Iberian type. 

London Saints ——Bishop Augulus and Restitutus 
of London ought to be commemorated in some 
way in the City. We are singularly wasteful of 
the power there is in the antiquities of a nation 
when sympathetically understood. If, for instance, 
Patrick had been recognised for the great British 
personage he was—the son and grandson of Christian 
parents captured to be a slave in Ireland—the 
magnanimous missionary might have been a mediator 
between the Irish and ourselves, a mixed race, part 
English, part British and part Roman. St. Augulus 
is included in the Roman Catholic Menology of 
the British Church. ‘ Feb. 7.—In London the 


EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON 219 


Passion of St. Augulus, Bishop and Martyr (a.p. 
300 ¢.). Named on this day in the Roman Martyr- 
ology and in all the ancient calendars as a bishop who 
suffered martyrdom in London. The conjecture 
of historians is that he suffered in the persecution 
of Diocletian about the same time as St. Alban.” 
He is given a place in the paintings of the English 
College, Rome. It is curious that of two con- 
temporary martyrs, St. Alban should have been taken 
up by fame and the other left. Confirmation 
of the point made by Sir C. Oman in regard to the 
name Augusta applied to London has appeared 
in the recent identification by Sir A. Evans of a late 
fourth-century coin with the Mint mark AVG. 
Early Christian Objects—The earliest existing 
“monument ” of Christian Londinium is dated 
only a little later than the year in which Restitutus 
attended the Council of Arles. ‘This is the reverse 
of a coin of Constantine, recently discovered (1909) 
at Poltross Burn, on the great Roman Wall, and 
thus described: “‘ Mint mark PLN ; of the London 
Mint and bearing the Christian emblem; a.p. 
317-324; variety of Cohen 638. Two Victories 
placing on an altar a shield inscribed VOT. PR. ; 
on the face of the altar a cross within a wreath. 
This is a London-minted coin bearing upon its 
reverse the Christian emblem of such rarity that 
the use of Christian emblems in the London Mint 
has been called in question. The only recorded 
specimens are a coin of Constantine 11. in the British 
Museum, one of Crispus, found in 190g at Cor- 
stopitum, and the present example. All have the 
same reverse” (Fig. 158). ‘This is in every way a 
very remarkable coin; the Victories placing the 
shield on a Christian altar is obviously a record of 


220 LONDINIUM 


the official recognition of Christianity. From this 
moment when the Cross appeared on what Sir C. 
Oman calls “the public gazette of the Roman 
Empire,” every one in Londinium must 
have known what the Cross stood for. 
“‘In an issue of money between 317 
and 324, Constantine used Christian 
signs in such a way as to solemnly affirm 
his Christian faith, and thus by universal 
custom made known the imperial will. 
The coins of London hardly make the same 
affirmation of Christianity by the Emperor as 
that of Siscia, but they testify to the intentions 
of certain officers of the Mint” (Maurice, 
Numis. Constant.). On the coin of Crispus men- 
tioned above, the Classical Year Book, 1911, tre- 
marked: “This is a novelty, as hitherto it has 
been supposed that Christian symbols did not occur 
on London coins of the Constantinian epoch.” 
“It is curious that the London Mint put Christian 
emblems on its coins before 
those of Trier, Lyons or Arles ” 
(Oman). 

With the coins may be associ- 
ated a small silver disc mounted 
as the head of a pin, now in the 
Roach Smith collection at the 
British Museum. My figure is 
from a drawing by Fairholt, 
according to whom it was found 
in Lothbury with several other 
small Roman objects. It seems 
quite certainly to represent, as Roach Smith 
supposed, Constantine’s vision of the Cross in 


the heavens (Fig. 159). 





Fic. 158. 





Fic. 159. 


EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON - 2ar 


A small equal-armed cross forms the clasp of a 
Roman bronze chain-bracelet found in London, 
now in the British Museum, which Rees 
can hardly be other than Christian ge 
(Fig. 160). There has been some ‘iy- 
reluctance in accepting crosses of a 
Roman date as Christian, but the 
evidence of the coins should modify this. 

In 1862 several ingots of pewter were dredged 
up from the Thames near Battersea Bridge, and 
in 1890 more were discovered. ‘I'wo are in the 
York Museum and the rest are in the British Museum 








Fic. 161. 


(Archaol. fournal, 48). ‘They are stamped with 
the monogram of Christ in two forms, with one of 
which is associated the words, “ Spes in Deo” (Fig. 
161), and the name “ Syagrius” also appears. Silver 
and copper ingots discovered in this country have 
official stamps (non-Christian), and it 
may not be doubted that the pewter 
marks were also official. A lead seal 
in the Reading Museum, found in the 
Civil Basilica at Silchester, has an XP 
monogram, which is very similar (Fig. 
162), and this, too, was probably official. 
The most interesting parallel known to me of 
the stamps on the pewter ingots is a seal from 





Fic. 162. 


222 LONDINIUM 


a wine jar found at Naucratis, in Egypt (Nau. 
li. pl. 22), where we find “ Spes in Deo” in 
a circle around a cross (Fig. 163). The circular 
form had long been used for official stamps (cf. 
a brick stamp with the name of Nero in Reading 
Museum). Pewter ware was popular at the end of 
the fourth century, and this is probably the date 
of our ingots. ‘The name which appears on them 
was in use at a late time. One Syagrius, “ last of 
the Romans,” was driven from his kingdom of 
Soissons by the Franks in a.p. 480. 

At the Guildhall Museum are two small terra- 
cotta lamps (Nos. 17 and 18), each having the Chris- 





Fic. 163. 


tian monogram in the centre (Fig. 164). These are 
not of British make, but they may have been im- 
ported in the Roman age. (A lamp which Sir L. 
Gomme made much of, with a little view of a 
city on it, was also of foreign origin, and there is no 
reason to think that the view had any connection 
with London.) ‘Two other lamps in the Guildhall 
collection (Nos. 54 and 117) are described as having 
‘limbs of cross on body, perhaps early Christian,” 
but I have not found these and some other objects 
which it is said may possibly be Christian. 

In the description of Wren’s finds on the site 


EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON) 223 


of St. Paul’s, given in Parentalia, is mentioned “a 
sepulchral earthen lamp figured with two branches 
of palms, supposed Christian.” Comparing the 
description with Figs. 165 and 166 there cannot be 
any doubt that Wren’s lamp was Christian. In the 
British Museum is a little rough lamp found at 
Tidworth, Wilts, which has a pair of palm branches, 
and I think that there is another in Canterbury 
Museum ; the former is so like others from Syria 
in the Early Christian Room at the British Museum 
that there cannot be a doubt that it is not a native 
work; possibly it was brought back by a pilgrim 
from the Holy Land. Fig. 165 illustrates the seal 
of a ring found at Fifehead Neville, 
Dorset, now in the British Museum ; 
on it we find the sign of Christ inthe _ 
later form (in which the X has become . 

a cross) surmounted by a dove, and 
between two palms. It means some- 
thing like “the Believer resting on the victorious 
Cross of Christ.” The earlier form of the mono- 
gram was made of the first two letters of the name 
Christ, XP; the later form was formed by a cross 
and XP or P, and this seems to have meant the 
Crucifixion. 

These comparisons will help to interpret a fascin- 
ating fragment of a symbolical design engraved on 
a glass cup found at Silchester. Here, instead of 
the sign for Christ, we find the upper part of a 
letter, which can hardly have been anything else 
than T, for nothing else would be central in the 
design, and in place of the dove we have a fish. 
T was the early form of the sign of the cross, and is 
found several times in the Catacombs; the fish is 
a rebus for the words Jesus Christ, God’s Son 





Fic. 165. 


224 LONDINIUM 


Saviour (ZX@YC) ; the palms are again signs of 
victory. It seems to be an early symbolical re- 
presentation of Christ on the 
cross, and one of the most in- 
teresting which exists (compare 
Figs. 46 and 47 in the British 
Museum Guide to Christian Anti- 
qutties). Another tiny fragment 
of the same glass has the letter 
Fic. 166. O on it, and there must have 
been some short inscription as 

well as the fish symbol and palms (Fig. 166). 

In the London Museum is an enamelled brooch 
in the form of a fish (Fig. 167). As the fish was a 
well-known Christian symbol, we may hardly doubt 
that this brooch must be counted among our 
Christian antiquities. It is exactly similar to a 
brooch illustrated by Mr. Ward (Roman Era, Fig. 
75) as having been found in Rotherley. They are 
duplicates, and must have come from the same 
“shop.” In V.C.H. it 1s recorded that a fish- 
shaped enamelled fibula was 
found in excavations at London 
Wall in 1901-5 (compare 
Builder, December 13, 1902). 
This may be the same piece. 
At Silchester a plain bronze 
brooch in fish form was found 
(Fig. 168). The fish symbol in 2 
an almost identical form is ofA 4 , 
found engraved on a pewter ABA 
dish, one of a set found at  fFygs. 167, 168, 169. 
Appleshaw (Hants) and now in 
the British Museum (Fig. 169); the dish itself on 
which it appears is sometimes described as fish- 








EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON) 225 


shaped, but it was rather a long oval with projec- 
tions at the ends. Another of the same set of pewter 
pieces has the XP monogram engraved on it (Fig. 
170). Asa third of the pieces is of the form of a 
chalice, there seems to be every reason to regard the 
whole set as church plate, and I find this definitely 
asserted in an article in the 4theneum (August 11, 
1906): “In 1890 a body was found at Reading 
lying east and west, together with Roman-British 
relics, and a lead plate bearing three crosses; near 
by was another skeleton with a small pewter chalice. 
This may be accepted as the grave of a Christian 
priest. ‘his chalice should be compared with that 
of a Roman altar set of pewter recently 
found at Appleshaw.” 

As said before, when tombs and coffins 
were discussed, it is probable that some 
of these represent Christian burials. A 
coin of the Emperor Gratian bearing 
the monogram of Christ was found at 
Smithfield, together with some wooden coffins, and 
it was probably buried as a sign of faith (V.C.H.). 
Two or three rough stone coffins foundin Kent seem 
to have been Christian. The first bishops of the 
Saxon church at Canterbury were interred in stone 
coffins of a Roman type. 

St. Peter's, Cornhill—Ancient tradition, which 
may be traced back to the twelfth century, claimed 
that the Church of St. Peter on Cornhill was older 
than St. Paul’s Cathedral, and a church of Roman 
foundation. ‘The site is important, being close to 
(as I suppose) or within the boundary of the Forum 
and Civil Basilica of Londinium. The main walls 
of the present church are neither parallel with Corn- 
hill nor square with Gracechurch Street, and Roman 


5 


Fig. 170. 


226 LONDINIUM 


foundations have recently been found in the neigh- 
bourhood of the church. Until all the lines of the 
walls which have been discovered have been care- 
fully laid down on a large scale plan, it would be 
rash to offer any opinion as to a possible Roman 
foundation of the church; but if the church should 
prove to have been near, but outside the Forum, 
the position of the church at Silchester would be 
significant evidence. If, on the other hand, the 
church site proves to have been within the boundary 
of the Forum, its Roman foundation would be 
improbable. 

Recent records of finds near the church mention 
‘an old piece of Roman wall passing through the 
present wall of the church at a slight angle under 
demolished buildings [along the north front]... . 
This may possibly belong to the original church ” 
(March 2, 1922). From an article in The Times 
of September 29, 1922, I condense the following 
account of discoveries made at the end of the year 
1921 on the north side of St. Peter’s Church: “A 
magnificent wall went down about 20 ft., but at 
15 ft. were the footings. ‘The wall was here 5 ft. 
wide; above the footings were three courses of 
tiles four abreast, each 13 in. wide, making 52 in. 
wide. ‘This wall had been plastered on the south 
side, and at some subsequent date[?] rooms had been 
made by other walls, on the plastering of which was 
still to be seen a pattern of imitation marble or 
alabaster. There were two layers of plaster and 
then a layer of white cement almost as thin as paper, 
on which designs had been painted by a skilful 
artist. ‘This wall had been broken down, and at a 
level 54 ft. higher, a tessellated pavement had been 
laid. Later, at 56 and 57 Cornhill, a similar wall 


EARLY CHRISTIAN LONDON 227 


was uncovered. The mortar joints between the 
tiles were wide. The wall was found on the south 
[afterwards corrected to north] side of the church 
wall, so that the ancient Church of St. Peter was 
probably built inside what was a Roman fortress.” 
For fortress I would read the Forum. The church 
can hardly have been founded in such a position 
until the Forum had gone out of use and the Roman 
age in Londinium had passed, but it might then very 
well have been constructed within old Roman walls 
or on their foundations. We saw before that wall 
tiles of exceptional size had been used in the Civil 
Basilica of the Forum, and the tiles, 13 in. wide, 
mentioned above would seem to be of the same 
size. [Twenty-five years ago a Roman wall was 
found, described as “‘ very close to St. Peter’s upon 
Cornhill, of immense thickness, proceeding in a 
westerly direction from Leadenhall Market, under 
the Woolpack Tavern in Gracechurch Street, along 
St. Peter’s Alley, a few feet on the south side of 
St. Peter’s, continuing under the banking-house 
of Messrs. Prescott, Dimsdale & Co. (50 Cornhill), 
supposed to continue under the roadway of Cornhill, 
_ and appearing again in the foundations of the new 
building now being erected on the north side of 
Cornhill (No. 70) for the Union Bank of Australia.” 
(Middlesex and Herts Notes and Queries, 1897.) 
This wall, if one may guess, appears to have been 
parallel to the 5 ft. wall on the north of the church, 
and between them seem to have been important 
chambers of the Forum buildings. 

Dr. Bury has lately given reasons for thinking 
that the Romans did not finally evacuate Britain 
until 442 (F.R.S., vol. x.). 


CHAPTER XII 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON? 


“There Thames runs by beneath the wall, 
Where pass the merchant vessels all, 
From every land, both high and low, 
Where Christian merchants come and go.” 
TRISTRAM, C. 1175. 


IRST British Cities—Ancient cities were 
ft not planted down by an act of will, they 
sprang up on lines of communication as 

centres of control and commerce. On a geological 
map it appears that a chalk belt passes from Kent 
to Hampshire towards the south bank of the 
Thames. From the north bank another wide belt 
diverges to the north-east. The backbones of 
these chalk regions are the North Downs of Kent 
and the Chiltern Hulls; they contain between 
them a long triangle of gravel drift and marsh 
flats through which the Thames flows to the sea. 
These downs, as we know to-day, when we find 
ourselves on them, are pre-eminently walking 
grounds, and they must have been the prehistoric 
ways of communication. ‘Primitive man tra- 
versed the ranges lengthways: in the valleys were 
forests almost impenetrable, whereas the back- 
bone of each ridge would stand bald above the 
1 The substance of this chapter was read at the Society of Antquaries 


about 1917, but it has not been printed before. 


228 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 229 


ocean of trees.” The oldest roads were “ Ridge- 
ways.” On a high Wiltshire downs at, or near, 
a point where the southern system of downs con- 
verge, stands Stonehenge, and I cannot doubt 
that it was in some way conceived as being a centre 
and “capital” of the country. The Gauls re- 
cognised such a centre, or ‘‘omphalos,” near 
Chartres. Since writing this, I find that Sir C. 
Oman has said, ‘‘ Britain must have had some focus 
corresponding to that for Gaul; possibly among 
the prehistoric monuments of Salisbury Plain.” 
Stonehenge, I may say in passing, is a monument 
of wrought stone set out with precision, and I 
cannot see how it can be earlier than about 5o00— 
700 B.C. 

The ancient trackway along the Chilterns, known 
as the Ickneld Way, reached the Thames near 
Wallingford. ‘Travellers going south and east 
from this point struck across the narrow space of 
low broken ground between the two chalk ranges 
by a short linking road. Silchester, the capital 
of an important Brito-Belgic tribe, lies on or near 
the course of such a road in a corn-bearing region. 
Silchester was the key of the old road system over 
the Thames fords. It is known to have been one 
of three most important pre-Roman British centres, 
and we may, I think, look on it as the first British 
city. 

The British city of Verulamium lay to the south 
of the Ickneld Way, in the same great triangle 
between the two chalk regions which is here much 
wider. ‘The rise of this centre suggests that a road 
linking the two chalk ranges had been found across 
the river valley much lower than Silchester. The 
later Roman Watling Street, directed straight 


230 LONDINIUM 


on Verulam, formed such a link, and there are 
many reasons which suggests that some underlying 
British trackway must have been the cause why 
Verulam became important. Later, again, Col- 
chester came to be the chief city. Possibly it 
was favoured as being more remote when the 
Romans should make an attack. It seems to have 
been named after the Celtic war-god, and this may 
be significant. (In Roman days as in medizval, 
there was probably a ferry from Gravesend to 
‘Tilbury for direct access to Colchester from Kent. 
‘This seems to be suggested by the Peutinger road- 
map.) 

Bais of London.—By origin I mean the begin- 
ning of a development which led to the establish- 
ment of a port and commercial town. Doubtless 
the site may have been occupied by some dwellers 
in the Stone Age. For many centuries before the 
Roman conquest Britain had been in commercial 
relations with the Continent. Just before the 
conquest Verulam was the capital of the leading 
Celtic kingdom. This Brito-Belgic kingdom had 
its southern boundary along the Thames and its 
eastern at the Lea, and these are still boundaries 
of Middlesex. If this kingdom, with its capital 
some twenty miles inland, had any sea-borne trade, 
its port must have been on or near the site of 
London. It is even probable that this port was 
the cause of the pre-eminence of the little kingdom 
to which it belonged. The port was to Verulam 
what the Pireus was to Athens, Ostia to Rome, 
Dover to Canterbury, and Southampton to Win- 
chester. London was doubtless the source of the 
wealth of King Cymbeline, and we might very well 
look on him as the founder. | 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 231 


Dr. Guest argued that London was founded as a 
Roman camp at the time of the Claudian conquest ; 
but it is now agreed that the name is Celtic; and it 
must not be forgotten that London is and always 
was a port. When we first hear of London only 
seventeen years after the Claudian conquest, it was 
already, as Tacitus says, famous for the number of 
its merchants, and this must imply that it was a 
principal port. -Dr. Haverfield, while admitting 
that the name is Celtic, went on to say: “ The 
name Londinium, the place of Londinos, witnesses 
at most to nothing more than one wigwam or one 
barn.” This ‘‘ at most”? can only mean that every 
town presumably begins with one building; in 
London, however, the building is not likely to have 
been a barn amid the bare gravels, but rather a 
boatman’s house. Further evidence for the ex- 
istence of a pre-Roman town is brought out by 
the large number of Celtic objects found on the 
site and in the neighbourhood, but they have 
never been properly catalogued as a group. Dr. 
Haverfield allowed that three pieces of imported 
Samian ware in the British Museum might belong 
to the period a.p. 10-40. ‘“‘We might then con- 
clude that through the influx of Roman traders 
London had been noted as a suitable trading centre 
a few years previous to the Roman conquest; but 
the minute dating of these potsherds is not easy, and 
we must leave the question of pre-Roman London 
unsettled.. Either there was no pre-Roman London, 
or it was an undeveloped settlement, which may 
have been on the south bank of the Thames ” 
(Fourn. Rom. Studies, vol. i. p. 146). ‘The evidence 
of such early imports is greatly strengthened by 
other discoveries at Silchester. Mr. May, speaking 


232 LONDINIUM 


of the early ““Samian”’ ware, says: ‘‘ The Silchester 
examples are of much significance. Together with 
the contemporary Belgic imitations they prove that 
the inhabitants of the capital of the Atrebati were 
importing costly luxuries in considerable quantities 
from Italy and Northern Gaul at the beginning of © 
the Christian era.” Early Belgic pottery has been 
found in London as well as “‘ Samian,’”’ and there 
is in the British Museum a wine jar of an early 
type found in Southwark. Some British pottery 
was doubtless made in Londinium itself before 
the Roman conquest. Mr. Lambert has described 
specimens of coarse wares in Archeologia. Of one 
of these he writes: ‘“‘ Bead-rimmed pot, coarse 
grey ware, irregularly burnt. A pre-Roman type, 
surviving into the Roman period.” He dates it 
A.D. 50-80, I suppose thinking that it cannot have 
really been pre-Roman. 

London above bridge is an inland city, the 
English capital; below bridge it is a great seaport. 
In a description of England, published in 1753, I 
find this: “That part of the Thames, which is 
properly the harbour, is called the Pool, and begins 
at the turning out of Limehouse Reach and extends 
to the Custom House quays. In this compass I had 
the curiosity to count the ships, and I have found 
about 2000 sail of all sorts of vessels that really go 
to sea.” In a twelfth-century rhyme on English 
towns are the words, ‘‘ London for ships most.”” Bede 
describes London as a great ship port. The city is 
placed just where the Thames widened into an 
estuary. At Battersea the river was little wider 
two thousand years ago than at present; it over- 
flowed wide spaces of marsh about Westminster 
and again contracted by London. Her high ground 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 233 


came close to the water on the north, and on the 
Southwark side there was only a narrow margin of 
low ground. Directly to the east of London was 
the low land called in the Middle Ages “‘ Wapping 
Marsh ” (Middlesex Feet of Fines). In the Pepys 
collection at Cambridge I have seen an engraved 
plan of “Lands by Wall or Wapping Marsh, 1683: 
seven acres of land in which the millponds and 
ditches did all over dispersedly lie.” Stow tells 
of Limehouse marshes being ‘‘ drowned.” Before 
the lower Thames was embanked the river must 
have been two or three miles wide, at every tide, a 
little below London, where the considerable little 
river, the Lea, runs into it. The higher ground 
of the site of London is in the angle formed by 
the Thames and Lea, and is the extremity of 
the northern hills, Highgate and Islington. From 
the hills several streams flowed through deeply 
excavated beds into the Thames. The most con- 
siderable of these was the Fleet; the smaller 
Walbrook intersected the site of the city. Conyers 
in his MS. at the British Museum noted how the 
Fleet was embanked in 1675 with material taken 
from old St. Paul’s, “to narrow-in the spreading 
breadth of Fleet River. . .. The waters over- 
flowed these parts in the old times.”” The general 
topographical conditions were well observed by 
Drayton in Polyolbion—The city was built on a 
rising bank of gravel and sand, surrounded by lower 
ground: the tide flowing up the Lea and Fleet 
prevented the town from growing too long: to the 
north and south of the Thames were ranges of hills : 
“And such a road for ships scarce all the world 
commands.” 

Way to the Port.—The men who first came to 


234 LONDINIUM 


the site of London must have come from the 
higher ground of Islington and Highgate; they 
did not cross the Lea or the Fleet. Before some 
engineering was done the natural way was from 
the direction of Verulam. Now, an ancient road 
lies along this course from St. Albans to Alders- 
gate. As it approaches London it passes between 
the Walbrook and the Fleet, pointing towards what 
the old tablet near St. Paul’s says is the highest 
land in the city. The Walbrook where it fell into 
the Thames must have had steep clean gravel 
banks containing a tidal inlet—a perfect landing- 
place where small ancient ships could be brought 
alongside. ‘This creek, afterwards known as Dow- 
gate, must have been the original port of London. 
Along the old road wine, pottery and bronzes 
were carried into the interior, and corn was brought 
for export. Dowgate is known as a port for foreign 
ships from Saxon days (Round’s Commune of London). 
It is especially interesting to find from Stow that 
in the fifteenth century the Abbot of St. Albans 
had a quay by Dowgate. (Old writers supposed 
that “Dow” represented the British word for 
water ; recent scholars equate it with Dove; but 
even so there is the curious analogy with Dover 
and such like place-names.) The Roman gates of 
London, of course, opened on important routes, 
and “the street from Aldersgate to Islington” is 
mentioned in the twelfth century (Middlesex Feet 
of Fines). Stow says: ‘‘ From the further end of 
Aldersgate Street straight north to the Bar is called 
Goswell Street. Beyond leaving the Charter- 
house on the left hand the way stretcheth up 
towards Iseldon.” Again on the old woodcut, 
usually called Aggas’s map, the street out of Alders- 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 235 


gate is inscribed “ the way to St. Albans.” That 
excellent old book, John Nelson’s History of Isling- 
ton, carries the account of this road forward, and he 
thought that it was Roman. He quotes a passage 
from Norden, to the effect that it passed east of 
Highgate through Tollington Lane to Crouch End, 
Hornsey Park, Muswell Hill, etc. ‘‘ ‘Tolentone,”’ he 
points out, is mentioned in Domesday. ‘This toad 
is laid down on old maps. Recent modifications 
at Islington may be made out by comparing maps 
given by Nelson and by Lewis in 1842. 

I now quote the passage relating to this old 
ridgeway road to Verulam from Norden’s MS. 
(British Museum, 570). He begins at Clerkenwell 
instead of from the City: ‘“ It is not to be omitted 
to declare the old and ancient highways heretofore 
used by our fathers though the new be of greater 
regard and account for that they yield more ease 
unto the travellers. There was an old way that 
passed from Clerkenwell as also from Portpoole 
[Gray’s Inn] towards Barnet and so to St. Albans. 
From Clerkenwell it extended as the way now is 
unto a bridge or brooke between Gray’s Inn Lane 
and Pancras Church, near which brooke it entered 
into an old lane leaving Pancras Church on the west. 
It is called Longwich Lane, through which lane it 
passed along leaving also Highgate on the west and 
passed through Tollington Lane, whence it ex- 
tended to Crouch End and thence through the 
Park to Muswall Hill near by Colney Hatch and so 
to Friern Barnet, from thence to Whetston and 
there meeteth the new way. The cause why 
travellers left this old and ancient way was the deep 
and dirty passage in the winter.’ 

The road is well described in Pennant’s Tour 


236 LONDINIUM 


(1782): ‘‘On quitting St. Albans I passed the 
wall of Sopwell Nunnery mixed with quantities 
of Roman tiles. After London Colney on the 
Colne I reached Ridgehill (!), a most extensive 
view. At South Mimms enter Middlesex and about 
a mile farther made Barnet ; in Saxon times a vast 
wood filled this tract. From this town is a quick 
descent. Just beyond Whetstone the road passes 
over Finchley Common, infamous for robberies, 
and often planted with gibbets. About a mile 
beyond stands Highgate, a large village seated on a 
lofty eminence overlooking the smoky extent be- 
neath. Here, in my memory, stood a gateway at 
which in old time a toll was paid to the Bishop of 
London for liberty, granted between four and five 
hundred years ago, for passing from Whetstone 
along the present road instead of the old miry way 
by Friern Barnet, Colnie Hatch, Muswell Hill, 
Crouch End, and leaving Highgate to the west 
by the Church of St. Pancras. After resting for a 
small space over the busy prospect, I descended 
into the plain, reached the metropolis, and dis- 
appeared in the crowd.” 

The old miry way by Crouch End is, I cannot 
doubt, the original British road from Verulam to 
Londinium. (St. Pancras, it may be mentioned 
here, must be a very old settlement ; near by was 
a bridge over the Fleet River, at a later time called 
‘“‘ Battle Bridge,” on which name theories have 
been founded, but I think the bridge may have 
taken the place of ‘‘ Bradford in the Parish of St. 
Pancras,”’ mentioned in the Feet of Fines, 23 H. viii.) 

A summer’s day journey to London, such as 
Matthew Paris would have known it, must have 
been of beauty unimaginable when the miry lane 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 237 


was not too wet. Mention is made in the time of 
Henry vii. of “‘a capital messuage called Muswell 
Farm in the parish of Clerkenwell and Hornsey, and 
the site of a certain chapel in the said parish, now 
dissolved, lately called Muswell Chapel” (Middlesex 
Feet of Fines, 35 H. vii.). A memory of the view 
of St. Paul’s rising from the midst of the walled 
city is given in a little sketch by Matthew Paris 
himself. I find this of Highgate in 1753: “On the 
summit of the hill a view over the whole vale to 
the city, and that so eminently that they see the 
ships passing up and down the river for twelve 
or fifteen miles below London.” Of Hampstead : 
‘The Heath affords a most beautiful prospect, for 
we see within eight miles of Northampton, and the 
prospect to London and beyond it to Banstead 
Downs, Shooter’s Hill, Red Hill, and Windsor 
Castle is uninterrupted.” 

A note of Camden speaks of another old road 
striking across to Edgware. ‘‘ Hampstead Heath, 
from which you have a most pleasant prospect of 
the most beautiful city of London and the lovely 
country about it, over which the ancient Roman 
military way led to Verulam by Edgworth and not 
by Highgate as now, which new way was opened 
by the Bishop of London about 300 years since.” 

Drayton showed remarkable perception .when, 
describing the hills about London, he wrote of 
Highgate : 

“‘ Appointed for a gate of London to have been 
When first the mighty Brute that city did begin; 


Its holts to the east stand to look 
Upon the winding course of Lea’s delightful Brook.” 


When Walbrook Creek was a _landing-place 


having a road connecting it with the interior, we 


238 LONDINIUM 


may be sure that boating passages across the Thames 
would be common, and very soon a link with the 
road to Dover would be formed on this line. Thus, 
the road through Southwark must have followed 
the foundation of London immediately. As is 
well known, Ptolemy put Londinium in Kent, but 
he—as Dr. Bradley pointed out—was frequently 
very wrong in regard to inland places. 

_ An ancient bronze mace-head was discovered in 
the gravel taken from under old London Bridge, 





which, I believe, has never been illustrated (Fig. 171). 
It was one of the mace-heads which are classed 
in the British Museum as of the Bronze Age, but 
they are, I think, early British. I have found a 
drawing of the mace-head in question in some 
interesting volumes of sketches by Fairholt at the 
South Kensington Museum. Fairholt’s note reads : 
‘“‘ Bronze mace found at Barnes, November Io, 
1841, amongst the gravel taken from old London 
Bridge.” Fig. 172 is an early bronze mace-head 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 239 


from Italy, in the British Museum, given for com- 
parison. 

The conditions were favourable for establishing 
a way in the line of London Bridge, for hard ground 
here approaches near to the south bank of the river. 
That the Roman city spread from Walbrook Creek 
as a centre is now generally agreed. Mr. Lambert’s 
plan of the finding-places of Claudian and pre- 
Claudian coins shows them distributed near the 
primitive port. Again, the city Watling Street is 
probably the beginning of the old road from the 
port. Wren found traces of an old street running 
aslant under the end of old St. Paul’s, and this 
probably formed part of the way towards Alders- 
gate. The acceptance of such a route as the main 
street of the oldest London would solve the difficulty 
of the “ fault ” in the lines of Newgate Street and 
Cheapside. I suppose that the Roman street 
through Newgate (which all would agree was formed 
at a late time when the walls and gates were built) 
branched westward from the old Verulam road I 
have been describing. In a similar way, the Roman 
road on the course of Old Street probably branched 
to the east out of the same ancient Verulam road. 
Mr. Codrington and others have supposed that the 
road to the east was continued also westward, but 
no evidence of this has been found. Stow, in his 
account of Aldersgate Street, says: ‘‘ On the east 
side at a Red Cross turneth the Ealde Street, so 
called for that it was the old highway from Alders- 
gate Street for the north-east parts of England 
before Bishopsgate was builded.” 

The Westminster Crossing.—It was remarked above 
that the emergence of Verulam into importance 
probably followed on the use of a river crossing at 


240 LON DINIUM 


Westminster and a trackway in the course of Edg- 
ware Road, which is known to have been part of 
a later Roman highway—the Great Watling Street. 
It is generally allowed, as by Dr. Rice Holmes, 
that a British trackway underlies the general course 
of this great Roman highway from Dover to St. 
Albans and beyond. The monk Higden, writing 
about 1360, said that Watling Street passed to the 
west of Westminster, but it has been objected that 
what the monk thought was not evidence. How- 
ever, in his time and until about two centuries ago, 
an important river crossing was maintained at the 
Horse Ferry. The Horse-Ferry Road appears to 
have been made to divert a direct passage at West- 
minster when the great hall of the new Palace was 
built, about 1100. Sighting the line of Tothill 
Street, we see that it would have passed by the old 
Palace, but that the Hall blocks the way. The 
Abbey lies at the side of this line, which seems to 
mark the boundary of St. Margaret’s churchyard. 
Here, too, were found the Roman tomb and what 
appears to be a terminus mark (T'11). The Horse- 
ferry is mentioned in an order of 1246: “The 
Bailiff of Kennington is to cause a barge to be made 
to carry people and horses over the Thames ” 
(Hudson Turner’s Domestic Architecture, vol. i.). 
Canterbury documents show that the ferry was 
later in the charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
and doubtless Lambeth Palace exists here as being 
on the great road. Inthe more direct line there still 
exists a short street called Stangate, which is an old 
name for a paved way. When Elizabeth, daughter 
of Henry vii., died at Eltham, “her body was 
conveyed to Stangate over against Westminster ”’ 
(Sandford). A way to the river also was long 





THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 241 


maintained through New Palace Yard to a landing 
place (see Fig. 173, from Norden’s map, ¢. 1600). 
Matthew Paris, in his route map of the way to 
Jerusalem, shows London Bridge and also the West- 





minster and Lambeth route, because these were 
alternative crossings. ‘Tothill Street is mentioned 
in medieval documents. It is possible that in 
early days there was a ford at Westminster, for 
Mr. Lambert has given reasons for thinking that 
formerly the tide did not rise so high as at present 
by 6 ft. Testimony on the course of the way 
16 


242 LONDINIUM 


from Westminster to Edgware Road is given in 
Ogilvie’s Road Book, 1675: ‘‘ Piccadilly . .. on 
the left falls in the way from Westminster by Tuttle 
Street ; four poles from this corner, you have a way 
on the right by the side of Hyde Park into the other 
road at Tyburn.” The ancient road from West- 
minster would have crossed what is now Green Park 
in the direction of Tyburn Lane, now Park Lane. 
Here, in Tyburn Lane, was “ Osulstone,”’ which 
gave its name to the Hundred in which London 
city is situated (see map recently reproduced by 
London Topographical Society). Tyburn, close 
by, was the place of execution, and doubtless 
the place of meeting of the old folk-mote of the 
Hundred, because it was at the cross roads. I have 
more detail establishing the continuity of this route 
(on which Dr. Haverfield expressed doubt), but 
I will pass to a few general final considerations. 
The primitive road in Kent as far as Greenwich 
was on high ground, but beyond was the wide river 
valley. By bending to the left on the edge of 
higher ground, through Camberwell where Roman 
objects have been found, the river might be more 
nearly approached opposite Westminster, and there 
was solid land on the opposite bank also. Beyond, 
at Park Lane, the higher firm ground pushed down 
towards Westminster, between two little streams— 
the road here, indeed, was a low ridgeway. All 
evidence suggests that a British road to Verulam 
passed the Thames at Westminster. In Allen’s 
Lambeth, it is said that three ‘‘ Celts ”? were found 
in digging the foundations of Westminster Bridge. 
Now, in Fairholt’s Albums of Sketches, at South 
Kensington, are drawings of three bronze weapons 
thus described : “‘ Swords and spear found August 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 243 


1847, under Westminster Bridge by a_ ballast 
heaver.” The swords (Fig. 174) were 28% in. and 
23% in. long, the spear-head or dagger was 16% in. 
long. Other pieces of British bronze work have - 
been found in the river in the neighbourhood of the 
Westminster crossing. Westminster Bridge itself 
still carries on the tradition by crossing the river 
at this point, and it is interesting to find recorded 
that the building of the bridge in the line of the 
Horse-ferry was the first intention. The import- 
ance of the Horse-ferry about 1700 is shown by the 
list of charges given in Hatton’s New View (1708). 





Fic. 174. 


My general results in regard to the British and 
Roman road systems may be summarised thus : 

1. A primitive trackway along the North Downs 
near the south bank of the river. 

2. An ancient river-crossing by a ford at West- 
minster and thence north-west through Britain. 

3. The growth of Verulam on this road, and the 
rise of London as a port in connection with it. 

4. A direct London-Verulam road made over 
Islington—a ridgeway. 

5. Hardly two or three persons possessing a boat 
could have been settled on the site of London before 
a direct path across Southwark would be taken 
to reach the Kentish road; thus the route 


244 LONDINIUM 


marked by London Bridge must be of pre-Roman 
origin. 

6. Other ways were thrown out; along the 
Strand to the Westminster crossing ; along the com- 
paratively high ground of Piccadilly to the west, 
and by Old Street and Old Ford to the east. 

7. The British road system was rectified by 
Roman engineers. The chief route was now over 
London Bridge; the Roman road along Oxford 
Street was made in connection with the enlarged 
Londinium issuing from it at Newgate; it was 
continued to Brentford, where it met the older 
road by Piccadilly; the old track from West- 
minster to Verulam was improved only from this 
new road, and the link across the river became of 
secondary importance ; Mile End Road superseded 
the route by Old Ford. "There were thus older and 
newer roads—British ways following the higher and 
harder ground; and Roman roads laid down in 
straight lines. 

In saying that London had its origin as the port 
of Verulam, I would not necessarily imply more 
than this: each may so have reacted on the other 
that it would be impossible to say which was the 
first cause. It is possible, indeed, that the Belgic 
kingdoms of south-east England were founded by 
invasions striking up the river, and that a landing 
at the site of London was earlier than settling down 
about St. Albans. It is remarkable that the Catti- 
vellauni and Atrabates occupied much the same 
relative places in Britain as they did in their conti- 
nental homes about Chalons and Arras. In this 
case, however, London would be none the less the 
port of Verulam. 

Camden clearly saw that London began as a 


THE ORIGIN OF LONDON 245 


port. Discussing its name, he suggested as one 
possibility that “It might have had its name from 
the same original that it had its growth and glory ; 
I mean ships, called by the British Lhong; so that 
London is a Harbour or City of Ships. For several 
cities have had their name from shipping, none of 
which can lay better claim to the name of harbour 
than our London. For ’tis admirably accommo- 
dated with both elements, and the river Thames 
brings it in the riches of the world. Moreover, 
it is such a sure and complete station for ships that 
one may liken it to a groved wood, so shaded it is 
with masts and sails.” 

Conyers, the old antiquary apothecary, two 
centuries and a half ago, said: ‘‘ Verulam was 
a kingly seat of the Britons, and the principal trade 
they had was between Verulam and London. So 
that on Watling or Verulam road there was a 
communication backward and forward.” 


THE END 


INDEX 


Alexandria, 8. 

Alignment, 46, 53, 145, 152. 
Altar, 128. 

Ante-fix, 29. 

Apotropaic sculpture, 140. 
Apse, 33, 35, 425 44, 47- 
Arches, 12, 17, 18. 

Atys, 139. 

Augusta (Londinium), 219. 


Bacchus, 144. 
Barbican, 80. 
Basilica, 16, 33. 
Bastions, 62. 

Baths, 49. 

Bone objects, 203, 212. 
Bricks, 10, 15, 37. 
Bridge, 41, 44) 54) 80. 
Britannia, 129. 
Bronzes, 121, 139. 
Buildings, 32, 33- 


Capitals, 11. 

Carpentry, 21, 30, 43. 

Cemeteries, 84. 

Chariot races, 51, 199, 204, 210. 

Chimney, 24. 

Christianity, 94, 96, 158, 160, 208, 
20%, 214, 217, 225. 

City (the), 55, 83, 119, 129, 184. 

Coffins, 92, 208. 

Coins, 220. 

Colour, 85, 112. 

Columns, 11, 16, 28, 34, 35, 39, 135. 

Commerce, 193, 202, 215, 230, 234. 

Concrete, 10, 12, 27, 37. 

Constantine, 220. 

Copings, 11, 116. 

Crosses, 156, 219. 

Cymbeline, 230. 


Dadoes, 167. 
Decoration, 161. 
Diana, 128. 
Ditches, 79. 


Education, 191. 
Enamels, 206, 224. 


Figure painting, 171. 
Floors, 27, 158. 
Flues, 15, 23, 43. 
Foot-rule, 8. 

Ford, 241. 

Forum, 33. 

Friezes, 136. 


Gates, 76. 

Gladiators, 199, 204. 

Glass, 31, 148, 159, 194, 202. 
Gods, 163, 127, 132. 

Greek workmen, 160. 


Hadrian, 121. 
Hercules, 127. 
Hinges, locks, etc., 30. 
Houses, 23, 42, 44. 
Hunting, 198. 
Hypocausts, 23. 


Imperial statues, 121. 

Impersonations, 126. 

Inscriptions, 42, 110, 115, 149, 161, 
176. 


Jove and giant columns, tot, 139. 


Lamps, 222. 

Latin, 26, 184, 193. 
Leadwork, 32,.140, 208. 
Leather work, 212, 





247 


248 


Lettering, 176. 
Lions, 140. 
Londinium (origin of), 228. 


Mace (bronze), 238. 
Marbles, 42, 99, 174, 194. 
Masonry, 9. 

Mausolea, 10g. 

Mirror, 203. 

Mithras, 133. 
Monograms, 221, 225. 
Mortar, 12. 

Mosaics, 42, 142, 175. 
Mouldings, 11. 


Opus signinum, 17, 27. 
Ornament, 135. 
Orpheus, 149, 160. 
Osulstone, 242. 


Painting, 29, 33, 35, 42, 162. 
Peacocks, 139, 151. 

Pewter, 211, 225. 

Piling, 14, 21, 43. 
Pine-cones, 139. 

Plastering, 23, 28, 35, 226. 
Porphyry, 174. 

Port, 28, 80, 193, 230. 
Portraits, 124. 

Pottery, 194, 200, 232. 


Roads, 243. 


Romanesque art, 30, 137, 143, 159. 


Roofs, 10, 16, 25, 29, 39+ 


INDEX. 


Saints of London, 218. | 
Sarcophagi, 94. 

Sculpture, 85, 100, 114, 119. 
Sewers and drains, 21, 37. 
Site and soil, 84. 

Skirtings, 29. 

Statues, 42. 

Streets, 33, 40, 43, 52. 


Stylen 7th 
Sun-dial, 161. 


Symbolism, 138. 


Tablets, gg. 

Temples, 49, 150, 187, 191. 
Thames impersonation, 132. 
Thatch, 23. 

Theatre, 51. 

Tomb-houses, 116. 

Tombs, 84, 100, 112. 
Tools, 8, 30. 

Turning, 30. 


Vaults, 17, 35. 


Walbrook, 61. 

Wall (the City), 16, 57. 
Wall tiles, 25. 

Walling, 9, 13, 22, 33, 37- 
Water pipes, 21, 32. 
Wattle and daub, 10, 22. 
Wells, 44. 

Westminster, 19, 240. 
Windows, 29, 31. 

Winds, 133. 


Zodiac, 133. 


Piensa 











6 3125 


3125 0002 


7a AX SS iS ; 





au 


< 


a Le, 
iets 


care 


od 


ee 


att 


tt 


2 el 


te 1 f oe ; ; shite 


- 


¢ 


i 


ny be 


ret, 


ee 
24] 
. fete 


* 


Sess 
Bh tent teoken aS 


et 


Nes), 





